I lived in Pittsburgh in the early 1970’s, and sometimes I worked freelance for Pittsburgh-based Lando-Bishopric Advertising, usually on the U.S. Steel account. At various times, I served as a concept creator, copywriter, designer and illustrator. Yes, illustrator. I’m not as practiced, fast and facile as most good comic book artists, but give me lots of reference and all week to make one illo and I do okay.

Once, I was asked to serve as a freelance art director. Grey Advertising in New York shared the U.S. Steel account with Lando-Bishopric. They were doing a project for the “U.S. Steel: We’re Involved” campaign, for which L-B had primary responsibility. I was hired to represent L-B at a creative meeting at Grey’s offices, to coordinate what Grey was doing with what L-B was doing, offer input and provide art direction.

So, I flew to New York as I so often did when I was working for DC Comics and made my way to Grey. Their offices, as I recall, were on Lexington, near Grand Central Terminal. In the Graybar building, I think. I could be wrong.

Anyway, I spent a day working with the Grey people. It was fun. If any of them wondered why a kid right out of high school was Lando-Bishopric’s sole representative, no one let on. They treated me as if I were for real, and cheerfully accepted my contributions. I think I did okay.

I stayed that night in the hotel I used to use on trips to New York when DC wasn’t picking up the tab. It was an older hotel, nice enough, but not as expensive as the snazzy, newer places. It was on Eighth Avenue in the Times Square area. I think it was eventually refurbished and became the Milford Plaza. Not sure. I flew home the next morning.

Here’s the funny part. A few days later, I turned in my invoice and my expense report to the V.P./creative director. As he looked over my expense report, line by line, he got increasingly upset! He said, words to the effect, “Are you crazy?! This is ridiculous!”

I’d flown student standby. Round trip airfare, $28.50 (regular coach fare was more than $100). I took the bus into the city from Newark Airport and back, 55 cents each way. The hotel was around $20. The meals I’d paid for totaled around $10.

No way, he said, could he submit an expense report like that. What, did I want to ruin travel and entertainment for everyone? What if the client says, hey, this is great! From now on no more fancy hotels and chauffeured cars! We want all of you agency people to be as frugal as this guy!

He tore up my expense report and added a few hours to my invoice instead. (Oh, by the way, that didn’t cost the agency anything—they billed my time to the client at triple the fat hourly rate they were paying me.)

The V.P. said he’d tell the client that I’d had other business for the agency in New York and, therefore, Lando-Bishopric picked up my expenses. And he warned me that, if I ever traveled on business for L-B again, I’d damn well better fly first or business class, take a black car or at least a cab, stay in a nice place and eat very well.

Okay. Yes, sir.

I guess that’s why advertising is so expensive.

Sex Education

Marvel did this custom comic book for the National Committee for the Prevention of Child Abuse:

Marvel donated its services. That was rare. Also a little out of character for the greedy suits upstairs, I thought. Could it be that they were inspired to do something selfless?

Nah.

Marvel ate the costs and got nothing for the book domestically, but the suits planned to sell the bejeezus out of the book rights for publication in foreign markets, starting with Europe.

Marvel held a meeting of its European publishing licensees at the Frankfurt Book Fair to pitch the book. I wasn’t in attendance, but I got a full report from Dominique Boniface. Dom was a director of international licensing for Marvel and handled most of our European business. Great guy. Good friend. I believe he faithfully reported the gist of the meeting.

Marvel President Jim Galton himself, with great fanfare, pitched the book.

The reaction from the European publishers was “ho–hum. What else do you have?”

Galton couldn’t believe that no one was interested. He was sure Marvel was going to make a killing on the book.

According to Dom, dumbfounded Galton asked, words to the effect, “Don’t you have a child abuse problem here (in Europe)?”

One publisher, I won’t say which one or which country, said, “Over here we call it ‘sex education.’”

That was a long time ago. I don’t know how much attitudes may have changed. But, initially, Marvel had no takers in Europe for the Spider-Man and Power Pack anti-child abuse book.

Dom, by the way, was one of the few Marvel licensing/business people I respected. There were a few good ones.

Last I heard, Dom was living back in his native Paris, doing what these days, I don’t know, but whatever it is, I’ll bet he does it well. He’s an amazing photographer, by the way. I believe he still does photography for Arts et Lettres Verso.

Bomb Scare Aftermath

The bomb threat Marvel received after publishing an issue of Web of Spider-Man set in Northern Ireland was just the first wave of fallout. There was no bomb, as it turned out, but the building had to be evacuated. All that was lost was work time and peace of mind.

The second wave of fallout was outrage against Marvel in some of the many Irish publications on the newsstands, seen all over New York, and I assume elsewhere around the country.

The Irish Echo sent a reporter, an Irish (of course) woman, to interview me, basically to find out why Marvel had chosen to take sides regarding the troubles in Northern Ireland.

PR Director Pam Rutt set up a lunch with the reporter. Pam sorted through our staff until she found someone Irish-looking enough, an assistant editor named Rosemary…McCormick, I think, a smart, charming, red-haired young woman. She didn’t have anything to do with the book, Pam just wanted to have her come along, as evidence that Marvel employed some Irish people, I suppose. Pam made us a reservation at Caliban’s, a restaurant in the neighborhood, on Third Avenue, I believe.

Caliban’s. I wouldn’t have done that. Caliban’s was sort of a very upscale Irish pub. Why an Irish place, full of Irish people if you plan to talk about an Irish tinderbox topic?

Anyway, the four of us had lunch. The reporter made a few notes, but mostly seemed content with our repeated denials that Marvel meant to take sides. We weren’t aware that we had made any intimation that could be taken that way until the bomb threat.

The reporter said she’d write a brief piece saying just that.

As the lunch ended, Pam asked the reporter if she had any copies of her paper with her. The reporter reached into her large bag and pulled out several copies of the Irish Echo.

Whereupon, our waitress, a tall, robust red-haired young woman strode up to our table and belligerently demanded to know what the hell we were doing with copies of the despicable Irish Echo.

The waitress and reporter quickly launched into a shouting match. The waitress tried to grab the offending papers. The reporter got up spitting fire. The waitress clenched her fists. Each of them was eager to pound the other.

So, I jumped up, glad to be scary big for once. I stepped between the would-be combatants, pointed a finger at the reporter and roared, “YOU SIT DOWN!” She almost fell back into her seat, freaked out by the giant, looming ogre. I turned to the waitress. “YOU GO AWAY!”

She backed off, then turned and scurried into the kitchen. To get a knife, maybe? I don’t know. By then, we’d attracted enough attention so the manager took over peacekeeping duties.

I paid the check. The Irish Echo reporter packed up her bag and we got ready to leave—rather hastily. I was still worried about a knife attack.

I said to the reporter, “You know, now I think I’m beginning to understand….”

P.S. At this point, I don’t remember which sides the Irish Echo reporter and waitress were on. What I remember is that they were really intense about it.

Warning: Use of undefined constant comment - assumed 'comment' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/jimshooter/www/www/wp-content/themes/lovecraft/comments.php on line 15
335 Warning: Use of undefined constant comment - assumed 'comment' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/jimshooter/www/www/wp-content/themes/lovecraft/comments.php on line 16
Comments

They are not asking for "equal" treatment. They are asking to be held is esteem for being in love with the same sex. They've asked for the rights to march down the streets in a parade and advertise their sexual orientation. If society is for this, we live in a free country and change will happen.I don't live in fear that someone will get special treatment. I verbally question it, but I don't sit around thinking about it with dread.

ja

Defiant1,

Just because a class of people complains loudly about being denied their civil rights so they can be treated equally as everyone else under the law, does not mean that they are victims.

Quite the contrary. Just because you don't have any empathy for anyone who you think isn't 'normal', doesn't mean you should be falsely labeling those who are more courageous than you've been in your life as anything other than people standing up for what's right.

For you and others who show yourself to be frightened of change, I thought I'd present to you the excellent words from the great congressman Barney Frank:

Anonymous

"It is exactly by engaging the examples that I offered that your anti-gay argument breaks down – so I don't blame you for refusing to engage them"

Only in YOUR mind. The fact is that the argument doesn't break down because, as ja is so fond of saying, they're "false equivalencies".

If you go back and read what I've already written, you'll see why I don't consider them relevant. I ain't going to take the time to argue over something that's nothing to do with the issue just because YOU think it is.

* "Nobody said gays don't deserve equal rights"

Then he immediately starts talking about what rights they don't deserve – lol *

That is to presume that adoption is an inherent equal right, which it isn't. Nobody has an automatic right to adopt…their suitability must first be confirmed. God, or Nature, or whatever you prefer, certainly didn't give them the "equal right" to procreate…so why should society give them what Nature itself denies them the ability to have – children? Ever heard of the saying, "You can't have your cake and eat it."? Gays wanting to adopt is a prime example of that!

You do realize the Constitution of the United States was changed to allow women and people of color the rights they have? I have no problem against that. I've said the laws need to be scrapped and started over. Rewriting the Constitution is starting over from the foundation. Somehow, I don't feel like the proponents of "gay rights" are going to happy until they successfully paint themselves as victims and get everything they demand.I don't see victims unless I'm also a victim because I'm single.

Anonymous

Who said I draw the line at gays? That's a pretty big presumption and your first mistake. However, those other people were not the focus of the discussion which is the only reason I didn't mention them. The subject was gay adoption so that's what I've talked about.

That's pretty simple to understand…why didn't you? Anyway, I'm not interested in explaining my point of view all over again. It's there in black and white for everyone to see. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands…why not spend it by reading the thread from the beginning instead of asking me to repeat myself?

Especially as it's only for the purpose of dazzling us with what you imagine to be your astounding intellectual capacities. The fact that you haven't taken the time to acquaint yourself with the arguments so far presented and are asking the most banal questions reveals the fact that you ain't got any.

Anonymous

Cool – I thought this was a conversation about gay marriage.

Since you won't explain your logic – I'll try to pluck it out of you. Why do you distinguish gays? What about parents who drink too much and fight in front of their kids? How about parent who smoke in front of their kids and don't feed and clothe them properly? How about single parents – aren't there some bonehead studies showing how latchkey kids will be abject failures as adults?? How about parents who teach their kids to be racists?? How about parents who live in filth and let their kids stay up past midnight? I'm curious why you draw the line only on gays? Perhaps it is because they are an easy target

Anonymous

To the Anon who wrote

"And you're still arguing from the assumption that gays should have the inherent right to adopt. That's something you still haven't proved. All you can say is "in your "opinion", which ain't the same thing. And your opinion has no more validity than mine. That's no basis for calling me a bigot."

Instead of getting sidetracked on soliloquies about "false equivalences" and so forth – I'd really like to hear your explanation for why gays do not deserve equal rights. Can you explain logically why gays should not have equal rights?

Anonymous

You love a good debate? I'm still waiting to read one from your side…what's keeping you?

I don't believe adoption is a civil right that anyone should automatically have. That's something that should be decided on the basis of what is best for the child or children involved.

Heterosexual couples, in the natural course of events, can produce children between them (unless there is some medical reason which prevents them)…gays can't. Where possible, replicating the natural state of affairs should be the main aim when it comes to the adoption of children.

Gay couples having kids is not a natural state of affairs…it's not something that would ever happen by itself unless the state intervenes to circumvent it. Therefore it's not an inherent civil right…it's an artificial and arbitrary condition brought about by state interference. Consequently, it is a "false equivalency" to try and place it on a par with freedom of speech, the right to vote, etc.

"In all your protests about gays being parents, you've not made any big deal about single parents who bear children out of wedlock to raise kids on their own. That shows how much more focused you are about your prejudice, rather than being concerned for children in general."

Simply because that's not what we were discussing. I know you like to try and obfuscate the issue by dragging other factors into it, but single parents is another subject. And in that circumstance, any children produced is the natural result of two people "getting together". The morality of such behaviour is something altogether different, but it's not relevant to whether gays should be allowed to adopt or not. What is certain, however, is that two gays getting together is never going to produce children.

As for hating gays, just because I don't think they should have the right to adopt doesn't mean I hate them…any more than you thinking that heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to prevent gays adopting necessarily means that YOU hate heterosexuals. (Although I could probably argue a better case on that score than you can on yours.)

The unnaturally unempathetic attitude and casual indifference you display in the case of the grandparents and their kids shows how much more focused you are in your bias in favour of gays than it does a concern for children in general. In other words, anything that MIGHT benefit children in such a situation is a ancillary consideration…the important thing to you is that gays get to feel validated by the imposition of an unnatural situation on the rest of us.

When you actually have a good debate to offer, feel free to drop by. Until then, let's avoid the circular dancing you've indulged in up to now.

ja

The United States of America is a place that, like the rest of the world, has evolved slowly, and only then in small bursts.

Our national shame is certainly wiping out the native Indians. Participating in the horror of slavery, and still another century later, to start the very slow process of recognizing (and codifying into law) the civil rights of blacks. Women weren't recognized for so long, and even today the Republicans are attacking the freedom of women to decide what should be done with their own bodies.

We have such a long way to go.

But we're figuring out more and more that there's no good reason to deny people their civil rights. They're starting to understand more and more – this is a big current struggle in the USA currently – that it's just not right to put someone's civil rights up for a vote. That those civil rights are just that. Their rights that already exist in the US Constitution. They are already entitled to their rights. It's just a matter of time when these rights are legally recognized all across the land, which requires that austere bigots be moved aside so people can live their lives as equal people.

Gays having the inherent right to adopt goes hand in hand with acknowledging their civil rights. That's where the proof already lies.

So, not a false equivalency, except to those who refuse to open their minds and let go of their ignorance and fear.

In all your protests about gays being parents, you've not made any big deal about single parents who bear children out of wedlock to raise kids on their own. That shows how much more focused you are about your prejudice, rather than being concerned for children in general.

I sure have called you a bigot, because that's all I see, due to the vociferous protests you make about something that does no more or less harm to this world than any other class of people. Basis enough for me to think of you that way. If it turns out that I'm wrong, and you're the nicest guy in the world to everyone you meet… well, that's not what I see when I read your words. All I see is ignorance, fear and hate.

Ignorance and fear I understand. The hate manifests itself the more and more you dig in, trying your best to justify and rationalize denying someone their civil rights, based upon what they are as human beings.

I appreciate you, because I do love a good debate on the merits of an important subject.

Anonymous

47 US states…who passed the legislation without asking the views of the majority of the citizens. And probably not even because the officials responsible agree with it themselves, but because there's some way of wringing increased tax revenue from it somewhere down the line.

And you're still arguing from the assumption that gays should have the inherent right to adopt. That's something you still haven't proved. All you can say is "in your "opinion", which ain't the same thing. And your opinion has no more validity than mine. That's no basis for calling me a bigot.

Kids deserve mothers and fathers…to deprive them of that right is wrong. That's why I'm against gay adoption…it's simply not the best option.

And as for equating the civil rights of blacks, ethnic or oppressed minorities, etc, with the gay adoption issue…it's not the same thing. A "false equivalency" as you would say. You're saying that they should be entitled to something that their own lifestyle (backed up by nature) deprives them of.

ja

Nah.

I agree, it's about the kids. They deserve a stable home, no matter who their parents are. I just don't agree that having gay parents is a bad thing, so long as those parents are as responsible and loving as parents should be, gay or straight, single or married.

I don't see the evil that you do, is all. I'm talking about equal rights and a consistent standard for parenting, no matter who they are, and all you can see is gay is bad, gay is bad, gay is bad.

You're right, that story is a sorry situation. But again, there is another way of looking at it, as I stated previously. It's very legitimate to look at the health and financial situation of the parents, and how that's going to affect the long-term care of those children.

"The will of the majority" over here is that forty-seven U.S. states have legalized LGBT adoption. So there's that.

I'm not "only" interested in gay rights. I'm interested in a just society in which equal rights would be applied to everyone.

There are many fearful people who don't like change in this world. When someone's civil rights are obstructed – this time it's gays, last time it was blacks and before that, women (all other ethnicities still have their struggles in this regard) – then there's no getting around how rough a transition it is for those very fearful people when society progresses forward.

People by and large will quickly get used to the new paradigm, and they'll move on with their lives.

Anonymous

First of all, this was not the first account of the story that I read. The very first one did not specify the exact location so I just assumed it happened here.

However, it is next to impossible to provide links to most of these stories because the link is usually abridged on account of being so long, and ends up trailing into nothingness. That's why I had to publish the article here, because the link was incomplete. Can't post it if I can't see it.

However, if you had simple typed in "kids taken from grandparents and given to gay couple" you'd have got the same results I did. What's so difficult about that?

As for your points, they're really lacking in substance, but to avoid you accusing me of not addressing them, I will.

First, the man had a heart attack 14 years ago when doing hard manual work. He is now recovered and effectively retired. They don't remove kids from homes due to those circumstances in any other cases.

And, because of modern technology, single women are now becoming mothers in their 60s, so age doesn't seem to debar anyone else from being a parent.

Second, out of the pair's 7 children, only one had gone off the rails…and did not actually live with her parents when they were raising her kids. The grandparents were the only 'parents' they had really known. They probably thought their actual mom was a sister or aunt…at least when they were infants.

Third, it has everything to do with gays as adoptive parents. At no time were any other hetrosexual couples ever considered as potential adoptive parents of the children. It is clear from the entire tone of the article that the kids were only removed from the grandparents because the adoption agency were determined to remove the kids and place them with gays. As the grandmother herself said, if they're not fit enough or young enough to look after their grandkids, surely the same applies to the 3 kids of their own who still live at home?

And it's not really about parents and grandparents at the end of the day…it's about the kids. They were taken from the only home they had ever known from birth, and ripped from a loving family who they wanted to stay with, merely to appease the politically correct appetite of people like yourself who want to enforce your view of things on others who don't want it.

The article says that 90 per cent of the population are against gay adoption, yet it was steamrollered through despite the fact. Whatever happened to democracy, buddy? You heard of the concept? The will of the majority was ignored, and it's probably the same thing over here with the states that legalise the practise.

"The story you recounted has some sadness, in that the kids were restricted from visitation with the grandparents. But the story has a lot more happiness in it, as the children have been placed in a stable home early on, and will have as good a chance at a good life as anybody else."

Yeah, two gays are happy so everything's alright. Heartbreak all round for the rest of the family and the kids, just to satisfy the smug, selfish demands on society that people like yourself place on it, and to hell with everyone else who doesn't see things your way.

How you can see any happiness in such a sorry situation is beyond me…or anyone else who has a heart I'd hazard a guess. You are one sick person bud, to see any happiness in that story.

As I said, it's about the kids…all kids. And they deserve a mother AND a father wherever and whenever it's possible. To deny them such a thing is to deny them their rights. But I forgot…deep down in the heart of you, you're really only interested in gay rights, however much it f*cks up anyone else's lives. That's why you're the REAL bigot.

ja

Anonymous,

Thank you for FINALLY giving the explanation to the story you kept talking about, but would never provide links to, thinking that people could somehow intuit exactly and precisely the story you were talking about.

This is why you needed to post a link to this story up front, instead of wasting all this time trying to recount something that you admitted you couldn't fully remember, chastising people for not grasping the story that you never provided full context for in the first place.

Or in the second place, or in the fourth place, or even the seventh…

The onus was on you to provide this information when you first talked about this story. I'm happy you finally did just that.

——————————————

It could be argued whether or not the grandparents were too old to caretake their grandkids for the long term. I see the validity to deny the grandparents' petition to adopt, especially because of the grandfather's heart attack and the fact that they were looking at the better part of 2 decades of caring for these children. It's a harsh calculation, but understandable. Though it wasn't stated in your recounting of this story, I imagine that the fact that the grandparents raised a daughter who had such terrible problems didn't favor the consideration of the grandparents' petition. It could easily been seen as not the best environment for the children on that basis alone.

I do not agree with the social service's push to stop visitation with the grandparents. That's a very strong connection that should be respected, and it seems that it was not. The Edinburgh social services are certainly wrong to do that.

But this has zero to do with gays as adoptive parents being a factor in anything here. This would be the same situation with a straight couple! You may argue that a gay couple cannot give the same quality parenting as a 'father/mother' dynamic would, but that's not right. Most of the civilized world agrees with me on this, hence their legalization of gay adoption.

There are so many different variations of parents in this world. Good loving and responsible parents are just that. Gay parents, straight parents, single parents or those with more (including grandparents, uncles, etc.), the bottom line is the quality of the parenting! Every family is different, and as many ignorant fears of how you may feel that gay parents are detrimental toward children, I can always point out countless more examples of children who have been raised by loving gay parents who have turned out quite well. I can also point out many more examples of terrible heterosexual parents, too.

They're all different (good and bad), but they should ALL be held to the same standard.

The story you recounted has some sadness, in that the kids were restricted from visitation with the grandparents. But the story has a lot more happiness in it, as the children have been placed in a stable home early on, and will have as good a chance at a good life as anybody else.

I sure hope the kids get to see their grandparents again, and on a regular basis throughout their lives. They do need that.

Anonymous

'I must admit that I feel bitter about the whole situation, as they [the social work department] are determined to have them adopted, regardless of our feelings.

‘We have tried very hard and have co-operated with them in every way possible. Both my wife and myself love Stewart and Fiona to bits, there is nothing we wouldn’t have done for them.’

The following month, the children’s mother said goodbye to them during a trip to Edinburgh Zoo. A few weeks later, their grandparents handed them over to Heather Rush at the Oxgangs office.

Stewart wanted a toy lawnmower as a farewell present; Fiona a bubble-making machine.

Stewart and Fiona have had several meetings with the men who are soon to become their full-time fathers. They are understood to be seeing them for a few hours daily and have visited their home.

But will their grandparents ever see the children again? ‘When they get older and ask why, we will have the necessary paperwork to prove that we both fought for them and the reasons it was not to be,’ said their grandfather.

Anonymous

Gradually, the department’s true intentions emerged. They did not believe the grandparents should look after Stewart and Fiona at all. They thought the children should be adopted.

From what the grandparents could establish, social workers were concerned about their age and health. True, the grandfather has angina and has suffered a heart attack.But that was in 1998 when he was working up to 18hours a day on a farm. He was signed off work a year ago and now leads a normal life.

The grandmother is 46 and has diabetes. But as she points out: ‘How am I able to look after my two youngest children?’.

She is an active mother, who regularly took Stewart and Fiona swimming and bowling. Last year, she even went skiing.

She revealed: ‘At one stage they told me it was selfish wanting to look after the children. How can it be selfish to want to look after your own family?’

The couple have records from four court hearings which show that two sheriffs — the Scottish equivalent of magistrates — heard the case at different times over 18 months and were sympathetic. The sheriffs refused to remove their parental rights.

Yet eventually, the pressure from social services became overwhelming, and the couple were assured that if they gave up their parental rights, they would still have regular contact and would be involved and informed in all aspects of the children’s lives.

In August, they gave up the fight. In a letter to Edinburgh Sheriff Court, the grandfather wrote: ‘These are the reasons for making this choice, which I might say has been very difficult for us.

‘We feel that due to the time involved in this process and the various objections raised by the social work department it would be in the best interests of the children that we gracefully back out of the proceedings and give up all rights to our grandchildren.

Anonymous

‘They have been brilliant every step of the way.’ They are not perfect, of course. Nor would they pretend to be. Their bungalow could sometimes be a little chaotic. But it’s a happy home — or it was — and Stewart and Fiona were happy there.

Nine months after Stewart’s birth it became apparent that their mother was in no state to bring up a child (Stewart’s father had already committed suicide).

So her parents brought Stewart up as their own. When Fiona, who has never even met her own father, was born a year later, they took care of her, too.

‘We thought it was our duty as grandparents,’ said their grandmother. Duty has become a forgotten word in Britain today, and one, it seems, on which Edinburgh social services places little value.

Initially, social services appeared concerned to ensure only that the children avoided contact with their unstable mother. But gradually the emphasis changed.

The children, they suggested, should be taken into foster care, while maintaining regular contact with their grandparents. After much soulsearching, the couple agreed.

It was, after all, only temporary. But that was two years ago. The grandparents have no criticism of the foster parents. But Stewart and Fiona missed their own home terribly.

Stewart would ask his foster mother: ‘When am I going to see my granny and grandad again?’

She would put calendars in their bedroom with stars marking the dates when they would spend the weekend at their old home; strangely, there is no mention of this on Stewart’s Having Your Say report.

The weekend visits happened once a month — until social workers began to press for them to be less frequent.

Anonymous

The family of Stewart and Fiona are in little doubt about which category the reports falls. In one way, the pernicious culture of political correctness is at the heart of this story.

‘This happened because the family is Scottish and working class,’ said a woman who, until recently, was a senior social services manager in the Edinburgh department.

‘Any social worker who, for example, presented the black parents of a black child with the kind of ultimatum that the family of Stewart and Fiona were given, which risked the child losing contact with cultural and family ties, would be sacked.

‘Political correctness is a big issue in local government, especially in social work. I am not aware of any official quota system, say, to ensure a percentage of adopted children go to gay parents.

But if you ask me, could it be happening informally in certain areas that like to be seen as progressive — and that usually means the big urban authorities? Then, yes, I believe it is more than possible.’

Recent figures suggest almost 3,000 drug addicts in Edinburgh have children at home who are at risk of abuse or neglect. In Edinburgh, it seems, drug addicts are thought to make better carers than loving grandparents.

The grandparents in question have seven children of their own. Two of them, aged 15 and 13, are still at school. Their 17-year-old also lives with them, while the rest of their children, who are all older, live away from home. All are making their way in life.

The mother of Stewart and Fiona is their eldest child. For the past six months she has been on a methadone programme to help her kick her longterm heroin addiction.

Over the years, she has suffered domestic abuse in a series of relationships and has been convicted of many offences, including theft and breach of the peace. She is not a bad person, just a troubled one.

‘I’m ashamed of what I’ve done and what I’ve put Mum and Dad through,’ she says.

Anonymous

The family had not heard the last of Heather Rush. On Wednesday afternoon she was on the phone to Stewart and Fiona’s 26-year-old mother, after the story first appeared in the Mail. ‘Tell your mother, that’s it,’ Mrs Rush snapped. ‘No contact.’ The front-page article, she claimed, would not make ‘good reading’ for Stewart and Fiona when they were older. Not good for them, or not good for Edinburgh social services? A document the family produced shortly after Mrs Rush phoned on Wednesday made rather better reading. At least for Mrs Rush. It’s called ‘Having Your Say At Your Review — Young Person’s Report’. A review, the preamble explains, is ‘where changes can be made to your care plan’.

Respondents are encouraged to give their views by ticking a series of boxes. One such form was filled in for Stewart by Mrs Rush on November 28, 2008 — just weeks after he had broken down in the corridor. Question: I see my social worker, too much, about right, not enough? Answer: The ‘not enough’ box is ticked. In the space below an adult has added: ‘I’d like to see Heather more.’ Question: Are you happy with the contact you have with your family and friends? Answer: The tick appears in the box marked ‘yes’. Question: What decisions would you like made at your review? Answer: ‘I would like Heather to find me a new family’ is the answer written underneath. Are we really to believe those answers represented Stewart’s true feelings? Most children of this age are keen to please and will reply in a way they think the adult wants them to. Listening to children and trying to meet their needs is one thing, politically correct propaganda another.

Anonymous

‘I thought the way Stewart was treated was appalling,’ said his tearful grandfather. ‘I told her [Mrs Rush] that she had no right to speak to a child like that. But she ignored me.’ You may wonder why Stewart and his sister had to go through this. After all, didn’t their grandparents provide a ‘warm and enjoyable environment’ for them to grow up in the absence of their mother?

Officially, at least, the couple were told they were too old to look after the children permanently — even though the grandmother is only 46, and her husband 59.

But after pressure from social services and concern about further disruption to the youngsters’ lives, the grandparents took the agonising decision to withdraw from the legal fight to keep the children.

If they knew then what they know now, they would never have done so. The ‘incident’ in the corridor of the Oxgangs office, they soon discovered, was not an isolated one. Nor, it seems, was the attitude of Mrs Rush. It was Mrs Rush — who has two children herself by different fathers — who contacted them again. She had some ‘good’ news. They had found a new home for Stewart and Fiona. They were to be placed with a ‘male couple’. The children’s grandmother burst into tears. Their grandfather was furious. You might have expected such sensitive information to have been delivered in person. In fact, it was imparted over the phone — with a warning: support the adoption or risk never seeing Stewart and Fiona again. The family are not homophobic; they have a number of gay friends. But if believing that children are best raised by a mother and father living together constitutes homophobia, most people probably are. In 2006, the Scottish Parliament approved adoption by gay couples — despite an official consultation that showed nearly 90per cent of Scots were against the move.

Anonymous

When the Mail broke the story on Wednesday there was a public outcry. Religious leaders and family groups were incensed. The Tory group on the Edinburgh city council has called for an inquiry. So how could it have happened? It is certainly a harrowing journey. The love their grandparents felt for Stewart and Fiona, and they for them, is apparent to anyone who visits their bungalow, where the children were brought up almost from birth.

On the sofa are Noddy and Bunny, the cuddly toys they once played with. One card, penned in glitter, from Stewart says: ‘I love you Grandma’, another, from Fiona, says:

‘Love you Granny.’ Their christenings, first day at nursery, and trips to the beach are chronicled in photo albums. And, of course, that picture on the mantelpiece. It was taken shortly before Stewart and Fiona saw their grandparents for the final time on October 7 last year.

At about 4.30pm that day they were dropped off at a building in Oxgangs, Edinburgh. The graffiti-scarred concrete block, of the kind still common in Eastern Europe, is where the social services department is based, and as a metaphor for what was about to happen, these soulless surroundings are apt. Inside was social worker Heather Rush, 39. Mrs Rush is no more or less to blame than her colleagues. Yet her attitude, you might think, typifies the brutally insensitive, bullying manner in which Stewart and Fiona’s grandparents say the children were treated. One scene, on the ground-floor corridor of the Oxgangs building, still haunts the family. ‘Excuse me, can I speak to you?’ Stewart, politely asked Mrs Rush moments before the emotional handover. ‘Yes, what is it?’, she replied. Stewart then told her: ‘I don’t want to go. I want to stay with my granny and grandad.’ Stewart’s understandable anxiety was, says his grandfather, met with thinly disguised irritation, if not anger.‘No, that’s not possible, you can’t stay with them,’ Mrs Rush replied curtly. ‘Now go and get your stuff.’ Instead, Stewart sat down, covered his face with his hands, and cried.

Anonymous

For, as many of you will be aware from our reports this week, the children’s mother is a recovering heroin addict.

The father of her five-year-old son was a schizophrenic who hanged himself two months before he was born. The father of her four-year-old daughter disappeared long ago, after making another woman pregnant. It would be hard to imagine a more tragic or traumatic set of circumstances.

But the one — indeed only — source of stability and support in the lives of these youngsters (we can’t identify them for legal reasons but we shall call them Stewart and Fiona) were their grandparents.

They insist social workers said: ‘Stewart and Fiona’s contact with their grandparents is very positive, and it is a warm and enjoyable environment for them to be in.’ Here, for the first time, we piece together the chain of events that resulted in Stewart and Fiona being removed from that ‘warm and enjoyable environment’ and placed with a gay couple.

Anonymous

Sorry, Mr Shooter…I can't read the full link details, so hope you won't mind me posting this in full. I thought it happened in the States, but it took place somewhere in England.

Read it and weep…literally.

The photograph on the mantelpiece of their grandparents' home outside Edinburgh seems particularly poignant today.

It shows a baby girl in a pretty red dress and her smiling brother enjoying ice-cream in Princes Street gardens in the city centre. Underneath someone has written: ‘You bring so much joy and laughter.’ They say the camera never lies. But this picture does; figuratively, anyway.

For just hours after it was taken, the lives of these youngsters changed for ever and a heartbreaking domestic drama turned into a scandal that is still unravelling and causing untold anguish. Now scandal may be too strong. So too ‘blackmail’, ‘brutal’ and ‘bullying’.

Yet few who are familiar with the story — or have been caught up in the sometimes harrowing process of adoption themselves — would dispute their sentiment.

Anonymous

ja, you're talking complete bs, and if you don't know it I feel sorry for you. You continue to prove yourself a dishonest person by your insistence on affixing your meanings to other people's words. Here's an example:

"And about me being the first to equate homosexuality to pedophilia: Nope. YOU did that by stating them together in the same post."

Are you mad or just stupid? As I have already said several times now, all I did was compare the "rights" situation of various groups to one another. That is a vastly different thing to equating their behaviour as being on the same level. Can you really not see that distinction, or do you simply refuse to because you like to argue? Don't attach a meaning to my words that any reasonable person can see was not intended.

You talk about me twisting what people have written, but you're the biggest practitioner of that habit on this page.

As for the grandparents story, given your tendency to distort things, I have to wonder if you actually read the account I mentioned, rather than read a different one. The grandparents were about 49 and 56, and their health was no worse than that of a lot of parents.

However the fact is that it's Nature's way for parents of mixed sexes to bring up offspring, so same sex adoption is hardly the best option. Every gay couple that is allowed to adopt deprives a child or children from being brought up by a mother and a father. It's my opinion that such a situation is not in the child's best interests. You may not agree, but it's absurd to call someone a bigot for simply holding that opinion.

As for Glenn T. Stanton's "fraudulent thesis" (according to you), I've already demonstrated how your conclusions are coloured by your own prejudices and not necessarily an accurate summation of the case. However, instead of addressing the issues you merely repeat yourself in order to divert attention from your lack of any solid foundation from which to argue. You can go around in circles if you like, but it won't get you anywhere.

Thank you for being a great example of narrow-mindedness in the truest sense…someone who cannot abide anyone else having a different opinion to themselves. You are a terrific beacon for everyone to see what the absence of critical faculty or rational intellect looks like.

I'm still waiting for you to make a nice try. I think I'll be waiting a long time.

ja

"I'm not against human rights. I'm against defining a scope for a law and then changing the scope after it was written."

By that standard, then you're really against blacks being free from slavery, and women & blacks voting. You're also against desegregation in schools. All those were laws before the scope of them were changed.

Which actually does make you against human rights.

What a shitty standard you have for people who are different than you. Not 'normal' like you are. Whom you obviously believe that you're superior than, with your words about how laws shouldn't be changed for a class of people after they'd first been written to subjugate them into dark corners of society.

Defiant1

If the Gay/Lesbian community joined in a partnership, lived out their lives together with the maximum number of children nature would allow them to conceive (zero),and died of old age, it would not be a growing community. The behaviors which allow the community to grow against such obstacles set them apart from heterosexual couples and make them different. As with every group, good and bad people are represented in society. My only point was to make it clear that criticism of the gay community is valid for those members that have predatory behavior. I'm somewhat tired of people being labeled as homophobic or against human rights simply because they disagree that gay partnerships deserve the same legal status as that of a man and a woman.

As I've stated before, the laws were written for the union between a man and a woman. It is entirely improper in my opinion to redefine the scope of the written laws and repurpose the intent that went into writing them.

I'm not against human rights. I'm against defining a scope for a law and then changing the scope after it was written.

ja

"The first lesbian I knew married a guy, got pregnant, had a baby, then immediately divorced the man to live with her gay lover and raise the kid. Is she normal like everyone else?"

To clarify, I speak of those people who were trapped in situations they shouldn't have been, due to the society they were in. Not anyone specifically scheming to "immediately [divorce]" someone like you described above.

But that's okay, Defiant1. You meant to equate lesbians as being deviously malicious people anyway, as if that one example represented all lesbians who are in loveless marriages.

ja

Defiant1 said: "For the sake of curiosity, is the 60 year old man that approached me in a public restroom when I was a preteen offering to perform homosexual acts… Is he normal and just like everyone else?"

He's a pedophile, and hopefully he was caught one day, and went to prison. You know full well that this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Nice try equating pedophilia to homosexuality, though.

Didn't work.

"The first lesbian I knew married a guy, got pregnant, had a baby, then immediately divorced the man to live with her gay lover and raise the kid. Is she normal like everyone else?"

Actually, YES! More than you might think. Back in the Leave it to Beaver days – or the 'Good Old Days' that Old White Men seem to miss so much, such as when blacks and women knew their place, and queers better not ever show themselves in public if they know what's good for them – many people knew how to closet themselves, in fear of being outcast.

As the USA collectively progressed, women & blacks getting the vote, civil rights finally being more and more asserted and codified by law, and certainly after the Stonewall riots in NYC back in the late 1960's, gays who felt that they could never come out of the closet more and more did. Those who were trapped in loveless marriages, with no widely accepted option to live the life that they needed to live, or even those who were ignorant of there ever BEING an option, were more and more able to live the lives that they should have been able to live in the first place.

So yes, this is "normal". Normal being a misnomer to begin with, I still understand why the ignorant and fearful – and those who generally can't stand gays having their civil rights acknowledged more and more in legal ways – who have no better argument against something that is right and true as being something that is not "normal".

"I'm just trying to narrow down the scope on who the normal people are vs. who we should view with disdain."

You're doing a fine job of that yourself, with the very condescending way in which you show your disdain for homosexuals' social progress in this country with your insulting questions about 'normality'.

"I wish life WAS as simple as advocates of gay lifestyle want it to be."

"Lifestyle" is another misnomer. It suggests that one's sexuality is something that's chosen, which isn't the case. If you apply that moniker toward gay culture, then okay. But that's not what you've been doing.

I look forward to more and more of your condescending and insulting questions, wherein you attempt to equate homosexuality as something bad, because it's not "normal".

You too are a great example of such a very antiquated viewpoint that will soon be company to those who were/are still opposed to others' civil rights.

Keep it up. You give great fuel to those who fight for the equal rights of others. It's much appreciated!

ja

@Anonymous: Whenever one talks about a specific thing such as the grandparents having their grandkids taken away from them and given to a gay couple to raise, usually one provides a link to such a story. Because you didn't – along with posting Glenn T. Stanton's fraudulent thesis wherein he twists the American Anthropological Association's conclusions about the position of the anthropological community on gay marriage – didn't automatically motivate me to go on a wild goose chase to look something up that you could have easily provided up front.

That, and my deadlines forced me to deal with only what I was reading during our heated exchanges, including links that other people provided to back up whatever they were talking about.

However, one huge deadline has passed, and in the several minutes respite I have until the next 3 deadlines fall on my head all at once (UGH), I finally was able to take some time to look up what you weren't providing a specific link for.

The stories (plural) that I read had to do with grandparents who were deemed either too old, or too ill to caretake their grandchildren in a long-term fashion. That the children were given to a gay couple is a moot point. They could have been given to a straight couple, which obviously happens way more with straight couples than with gay ones in this country, by the hugest margin. Children being handed to a gay couple has nothing to do with the decision that was made, regarding these grandparents.

I would like to have read that whomever had custody of the children (gay or straight), would have made sure that the grandparents were still in the children's lives, of course. But on a case by case basis, it would have to depend on whether the grandparents – when they have visitation – aren't poisoning the children with horror stories about the people who have custody of them, gay or straight. In that event, if I were caring for the children and grandparents did that, I would deem that as a maliciously toxic environment, and I would then restrict or deny their visitation, so as not to continue exposing the children to such hateful drama. I would be backed up by law, in this regard.

The simple premise that gay couples can't be loving positive parents is just simply a fallacy. I and millions of other people – including FORTY-SEVEN states in the USA which allow for LGBT adoption – agree with this.

And about me being the first to equate homosexuality to pedophilia: Nope. YOU did that by stating them together in the same post. Thinking that you're clever enough to wordsmith yourself around the fact that you did that, doesn't change the fact that you did. Many opponents of gayANYTHING always try to wordsmith their way around making that connection, all the while actually talking about the two things in the same breath (or post), believing that there will be a subliminal connection in people's collective minds.

Good thing people are smarter than that. Nice try, though.

Again, fight all you wish. Twist anything myself, Jacob, Brandy, kgaard, or anyone else has written here. You are on the wrong side of this particular evolution. The more you resist something that isn't harmful to anyone, the more it only twists you into angry emotional knots. That's a good thing! As much as you try to condescend and denigrate people you disagree with, it doesn't change the fact that you can't change the good progress that is finally going forward in this country.

Thank you for being the great example of such a very antiquated viewpoint that will soon be company to those who were/are still opposed to others' civil rights. You are a terrific beacon for everyone to see what unnecessary desperation, fear and hatred looks like.

Is it right to assume that you deem *any* group seeking to change current laws as seeking to redefine society rather than securing equal rights? Or is it only gays and other minorities you are opposed to?

The former would be a rather short-sighted view of both equality and history, but would at least be internally consistent. The latter would be difficult to separate from bigotry (although I'm sure you could in your own mind).

Anonymous

What is offensive and gratuitous is your name calling and bad language. Don't talk to me about adult discussion until you can behave like a grown-up. If you didn't give a f*ck, you wouldn't be so upset at a humorous comment that plays on the well-known perception of attorneys being nothing but sharks. Or how do you think Defiant's old joke about "deep down, they're very nice people" (or similar) came about? And you're not even an attorney now, so I think you're milking the "victim" role a bit much.

And if you were as good at your job as you are at spelling, then it's no wonder you're not doing it any more.

I don't respond to offense as you do. When I carefully choose a word like "prevalent" to state precisely what my point is, it makes the discussion moot (i.e. of little or no practical value) when the word is ignored.

True story. When my niece was in elementary school, her teacher was greatly disturbed because because she was so sarcastic. The teacher's concern prompted her to call her mother (my sister) and discuss the "problem" she was seeing. Upon meeting my sister she says, "I'm very concerned, your child is the most sarcastic child I've ever met." My sister's eyes widened with excitement. She shakes her head "yes" and says "Sarcasm is revered in my family." My sister took it as a compliment. I am the most sarcastic person in my family. I date someone equally sarcastic and she loves it. If you are lucky, someday you will understand it and joy will fill your life light a light bulb evacuating the darkness.

Anonymous

Ananymous write

Attorneys have morals and ethics? Good luck with that one…that's an even tougher proposition to prove.

——-

That's not a joke, it's an insult. Try to pass it off however you like; it was a completely unnecessary and asinine thing to say. I see no evidence whatsoever that you are joking or being sarcastic, and even if you were, it IS STILL OFFENSIVE and gratuitous.

Instead of an apology, I get that I'm too sensitive. But this is your mistake: I don't give a flying fuck what you think of me or my former profession. However, my point is and remains that if you can't have a big-boy discussion without throwing in this kind of bullshit, it's not worth my time to make an effort. That's not sensitivity, it's common sense, because why have a conversation under those circumstances? I don't mind serious discussions with adults who know how to conduct themselves, but sadly, this is not the case in this instance. But, by all means, keep up being a jerk if it pleases you. I just can't take you seriously, and thus will not participate.

The laws are written, so I don't see GBLT as a group seeking equal rights. I see this as a group trying to redefine the prevalent attitude of society and impose their desires upon everyone else. I think that the changes proposed are not unlike those which brought they decay of the Roman Empire.

If the laws do get rewritten, I will adhere to them and still disagree.

Anonymous

Jacob, I think I can see what the problem is here. Some people aren't clever enough to apply a principle demonstrated in an analogy to the initial subject under discussion.

That's what we were doing, see? Discussing how laymen (or scientists) come to conclusions based on scientific research which has a wider application than those who conducted the research may be happy with. Doesn't mean that application is erroneous just because the researcher disagrees with it.

Once again you've misunderstood and completely missed the point. It's like talking astrophysics with a three month old baby.

Jacob, you'll find that a lot of people who actually believe in God are real, live, bona-fide scientist

No shit! Except we weren't talking about belief in God – we were discussing how laymen distort science they don't understand. And, generally speaking, scientists don't appreciate that no matter what they believe.

So, once again; when some goon takes a bunch of anthropology out of context to while about homosexuals, and the scientist who DID THE WORK says "nuh-uh", correct behavior and common sense dictate that we ignore the goon. I'm sorry if this makes you sad!

Ha ha. Anyone watch Comic Book Men on AMC? Watched the Grammys, instead, but tried to catch it later on.

Was very much, who gives a damn, Kevin Smith (find me among your Twitter followers and block me, asshole. Which he might. I'll consider it a test)? Anyway, it was mildly amusing, as "who doesn't know those guys?"

Anonymous

kgaard, I think you're forgetting how this whole thing started. I only said that those who don't agree with your point of view should be able to express their opinion without getting insulted for it.

Now…what's wrong with that concept?

I try not to indulge in insults because I don't think it's useful or enlightening, and (as I think we've seen) derails the actual topic of conversation. I'm not above being pointed or sarcastic, because I think these rhetorical strategies can be revealing in their own way, and, if I'm honest, because it amuses me. I do think sarcasm and insults are separate categories.

I went back through my own comments in this (long!) thread, and I don't I was ever insulting (I'm not going to answer for other posters). Pointed, yes. Sarcastic, definitely. But I think that may depend on what's considered insulting. I did in one comment use the term "bigotry" and "bigots" to refer to gay-rights opponents, but as far as I'm concerned this is a non-controversial application of the word. It's probably a good thing if people feel insulted by the term, though–being a bigot is not something to strive for.

In sum, I would say this: Would it better if we could have this conversation without insults? Sure. Is that realistic? No, not really. It's a subject people feel passionate about, on both sides. Many people clearly take it personally, and it's not surprising to see choice words. It's the internet, but not just the internet, it's how people are. I've taken a few nicks. I'll live. So will you, I'm guessing.

Anonymous

Defiant1 and Anonymous:

I did not attack either of you personally. I simply stated what the facts are according to my knowledge. You both chose to use weasel words and insult me personally in return. I was perfectly willing to have an entirely reasonable discussion with you on the issues; not after that.

Anonymous

Defiant1,

I think you misunderstand what people (most people, anyway) here are arguing for. The argument is that GLBT citizens should have equal treatment under the law, no more, no less: the right to marry (and the right to divorce), the right to adopt, the right to defend the country alongside their straight compatriots, and any other rights obtained by a citizen of maturity.

Is it okay for a gay adult male to cruise a preteen in a public bathroom? Well, of course not, just as it's not okay for a straight adult male to feed his semen to an 8-year-old girl. No one is suggesting changing age-of-consent laws (or for that matter, any kind of consent laws).

Who should you view with disdain? Same as always: people who harm others with malice, people who lack decency and compassion, and gingers. Gays having rights changes none of that.

By the same token, sexual harassment is illegal, whether it's a man harassing a man, a man harassing a woman, and so forth. Though if you are complaining about non-work-related compliments and approaches, then you're just going to have to walk that off, buddy, as you would if hit on by an unattractive woman. It's okay to be annoyed! Life is annoying sometimes! I'm annoyed by people who preach on the subway. But I don't want to outlaw it.

As far as your need for sexy waitresses and porn actress trivia, might I suggest Hooters and the internet? (For instance, I hear Sarah Young is a lawyer these days, can you believe that?)

–kgaard

P.S. The gingers comment was (obviously, I hope) a joke. I love redheads!

Anonymous

Jacob, you'll find that a lot of people who actually believe in God are real, live, bona-fide scientists, who have qualifications and have read books and everything. And I'm afraid of nothing…certainly not small-minded bigots with their own agenda to peddle like yourself.

Jeff Z, that's fine. ALL of me is laughing at you, so I suppose it's only fair. I can go on forever…you up to it?

Jeff Z

Anonymous: are you sure it's not you that the majority of humankind finds revolting? You'll be happy to know that every time I hear of a gay marriage or victory (such as Ellen over the "million moms", part of me will be laughing at you.

However, the exact same evidence can also be used to support the hypothesis that the similarity between lifeforms is down to the fact that a Supreme Being…a designer…created them

Only if you don't actually know anything about science, the evidence in question, or, hell, basic theology. Only if you spend your life running in terror from books instead of reading them. Why are you so afraid of so many things?

Anonymous

Jeff Z, if you're so into "diversity", why are you so desperate to have everyone and everything "the same"? Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Adoption by gays is just another attempt to hoodwink society into thinking that homosexuality is normal. That being the case, why do the majority of humankind seem to have such a natural aversion to (and revulsion of) it?

Jeff Z

Diversity is pro-nature, not anti-nature. It is as much a contribution to society to not procreate in this era of billions consuming resources. Only fear , prejudice and paranoia keep gays from enjoying the same advantages as the rest of us. James Dobson has stated his delusional fantasy that gays will tire of marriage and then seek to get rid of the institution for everyone. This from the #1 opponent of gay marriage. This pathetic argument shows how desperate the conservatives are in grasping to justify their stance. Deep down, Dobson and his anonymous fellow travelers know they won't win. Momentum is on the side of progress. In the 60s, gays had their bars raided. In the 80s, they had a president who had to be shamed into acknowledging a disease which was killing them by the thousands. They learned to fight the reactionaries who held them back because their very survival was at stake. Having learned to fight, they are now much better at it than the religious hypocrites who claim to represent Truth but can never stop lying. By 2040, people will be amazed that this was ever a battle at all. And the religious idiots will still be trying to get rid of birth control.

Anonymous

Ja, I think you'll find that it was YOU who equated pedophilia with homosexuality. All I did was point to the similarities between the circumstances (as far as "rights" are concerned) of homosexuals, drug abusers, animal humpers and pedophiles. Catch that? The circumstances, not the behaviour. Is that too subtle a distinction for you to make? Seems like it. I later denied it? No, I refuted your false accusation of me having said something I never said to begin with.

As for having to doubt the story about the grandparents…no, YOU have to doubt it because you can't handle the truth of it. It's only a Google search away, ja…the work of seconds…why haven't you looked it up yet? Can't handle the truth, huh? That's why you prefer to erect straw men and attack them.

As for the rest of your nonsense, it's nothing to do with the FACTS of the case so is therefore irrelevant.

Jacob, you've obviously got a problem with thinking, so let me give you an example to clarify things. Scientists who did the research noticed that there is a great similarity in many lifeforms throughout the planet. From that they concluded that everything was related to one another and must have evolved, simple to complex, over millions of years. The facts support (to a degree) that hypothesis.

However, the exact same evidence can also be used to support the hypothesis that the similarity between lifeforms is down to the fact that a Supreme Being…a designer…created them, and that the similarity is his signature, so to speak. Same evidence, different conclusions. Obviously. the evolutionists aren't too happy about the results of their research being used to support a concept that many of them disagree with. (And probably vice versa.)

Seems to me to be the exact same thing you're complaining about. On what basis do I presume to question him? Nature's basis. Men and women = children. Parents…one man and one woman. That's still the best way to go. If it wasn't, same sexes would've evolved to being able to procreate. Never going to happen I think.

Brandy, that statute was passed in 1978 in order to define marriage in the light of gays attacking and distorting what it was supposed to be. It was therefore felt necessary to enshrine marriage in law. As for your other spurious point, many societies from ancient times forward have also indulged in other questionable activities…doesn't mean we have to recognise them as being good for society nowadays.

Attorneys have morals and ethics? Good luck with that one…that's an even tougher proposition to prove.

Is it okay for heterosexual women to get annoyed with men who keep trying to make a relationship happen when it won't? I think it is. I want to know if it's okay for me to get annoyed with gay men trying to make small talk about how my day was at work or compliment me on my "broad shoulders".

Man, I weep for you. What a hard life you've had. No wonder you spend it sobbing.

Just because the "scientist" may not like the fact that his research supports or can be applied to a conclusion he doesn't agree with doesn't mean that it isn't the case.

That's exactly what it means. He did the research; you didn't. He has the qualifications; you don't. On what basis do you presume to question him? Your own cringing fear? Your own shivering cowardice? You need to stop it. You need to let go of your fear and carry yourself like a grown-up. This is vitally important for your future growth and any chance at a meaningful human existence you hope to have.

Anonymous

Defiant1 wrote

"Marriage being defined as the union of a man and woman has been the prevalent perception by society for hundreds and thousand of years. "

—–

Well, no. Many societies, from ancient times forward, have recognized same-sex marriage (or equivalent pairings in cultures which lacked formal marriage rites). It astounds me that people present this argument without ever having looked up the facts. I'm sure it's what you BELIEVE, but it is simply not the case.

In the USA, the first statute passed defining marriage as between a man and a woman was in … 1970.

@ Anonymous: yeah, I'm a friggin' saint for wanting what's best for my clients over profits. In your gross generalization in your haste to lawyer-bash, you probably forgot that attorneys have ethics, scruples, and morals.

For the sake of curiosity, is the 60 year old man that approached me in a public restroom when I was a preteen offering to perform homosexual acts… Is he normal and just like everyone else? Quite honestly, the guy disgusted me and I just shouted a loud "No". I've never seem a man leave a mall so quickly.

The first lesbian I knew married a guy, got pregnant, had a baby, then immediately divorced the man to live with her gay lover and raise the kid. Is she normal like everyone else?

I'm just trying to narrow down the scope on who the normal people are vs. who we should view with disdain.

Is it okay for heterosexual women to get annoyed with men who keep trying to make a relationship happen when it won't? I think it is. I want to know if it's okay for me to get annoyed with gay men trying to make small talk about how my day was at work or compliment me on my "broad shoulders".

Is it okay for a gay restaurant manager that's new at an establishment to harass and run off all the sexy attractive waitresses that provide excellent attentive service and replace them with gay waiters and waitresses that are more interested chatting amongst themselves than filling a glass of tea? That's happened at several places I used to like.

One of my best supervisors was presumed to be gay. He never openly stated it. I still kinda preferred a boss I had out of high school that could tell you interesting trivia about porn actresses.

I wish life WAS as simple as advocates of gay lifestyle want it to be. The world WOULD be a better place.

ja

Jacob said: " Let's work together to find out what's confounding you so, and then, using the power of logic, we can overcome it."

Difficult to do with someone who has decided that anyone who is gay isn't better – or even as qualified – as straight people when it comes to parenting. The whole common-sense argument is a non-starter, especially after he tried to connect homosexuality to pedophilia (even though he denied it later).

Besides, Jacob… since Mr. Anita Bryant hasn't provided a specific URL to this 'story' about grandparents being passed over, you have to doubt his recounting of the story as being accurate since he never qualified his story with a link.

There are a number of stories online where gays have been chosen to care for children over the children's grandparents. The theme of these stories has to do with the parents being drug addicts or otherwise irresponsible, and the grandparents being too old, or borderline too old, but with health concerns. I see no problem with gays adopting or fostering children in these circumstances.

Irresponsible parents who are drug addicts fucks with kids' lives. Grandparents who have health problems, or are just too old to care for young children long-term isn't the best solution. There is nothing wrong with having gay singles or couples at the ready to provide stable, loving homes for those in need. That's not fucking with kids' lives. That's helping to save kids' lives.

Mr. Anita Bryant's absolute position is that it's fundamentally wrong for gays to parent in any circumstance. Or for them to be married, being equal to everyone else in this country in terms of personal rights and freedoms.

He's wrong, but he'll never acknowledge it.

I still don't know which specific case Anonymous Bryant's grandparent story is, but his conclusion is always: Gay bad. Only straight good!

We can argue this until the cows come home. No one's going to budge. As I said before, progress is moving forward, whether certain people like it or not. And even though the unimportant distinction of someone's sexuality isn't the problem that scared people want to make it out to be, it's still something that will be used more and more by people who will get louder and louder with their protests.

And those protests will continue to fuel the common-sense progression that they are so very afraid of.

Anonymous

Just because the "scientist" may not like the fact that his research supports or can be applied to a conclusion he doesn't agree with doesn't mean that it isn't the case. I realize that this is a difficult and scary concept…for you.

And you have explained nothing once. You did try to explain it away, but in complete ignorance of the facts. We're not talking about a hypothetical case, we're talking about a case where the grandparents were blackmailed into withdrawing their objection lest they never saw the kids again. Address yourself to the facts, not what you'd like the facts to be. Google the story and read it for yourself.

Perhaps now you realize that you're the one who is confounded and illogical (but I doubt it). Deal with the facts, not your speculations.

"are you telling me that taking two kids from their grandparents to give to two gay guys isn't f*cking with people's lives and that it makes the world a better place?"

I believe I've explained this once, but once again: yes, if the court decided that the gay couple were in a better position to provide for the child – due to the grandparents' health, income, or whatever – then absolutely. And I reiterate: this happens all the time. Nothing about it is particularly complicated. Let's work together to find out what's confounding you so, and then, using the power of logic, we can overcome it.

"As for your statement that I posted a fraudulant misrepresentation of the AAA's report on gay marriage…no, I posted someone's conclusion of what they thought it meant. The fact that it disagrees with your own conclusion doesn't make it "fraudulent"."

It does when the scientist whose work it's based on goes "no, wait, this is retarded."

Anonymous

ja, your above hogwash is as distorted and impotent as your other dishonest misrepresentations.

First of all, "several times" is overstating the case. Two, maybe three perhaps, most (if not all of them) by yourself. However, in response to your first request, I immediately replied that various accounts of the story were only a Google search away. You could have found out for yourself, but the fact that you still haven't looked demonstrates your lack of interest in veryfying it as true.

I can see why: You can't continue to insist it's a lie if you see it for yourself.

As for your statement that I posted a fraudulant misrepresentation of the AAA's report on gay marriage…no, I posted someone's conclusion of what they thought it meant. The fact that it disagrees with your own conclusion doesn't make it "fraudulent".

Something else to take account of is the fact that your idea of "evolving" is someone else's idea of "warping"…yet you can't allow for anyone having a different view to your own.

I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your diatribe; it merely reflects a narrow-minded, insecure mindset that's not worth the toilet paper it's smeared on.

Now, as you haven't bothered tp verify it (which you can by typing one sentence), just imagine for the moment that it's true: are you telling me that taking two kids from their grandparents to give to two gay guys isn't f*cking with people's lives and that it makes the world a better place?

ja

In case anyone has come back to read further responses (as I don't want to extend this conversation into Jim's Kabbala post), then I'll try to sum up some thoughts on this subject (for now, until someone else decides to spark off another shitstorm with their ignorance and hatred).

Anonymous said: "No, ja, the link exists…in fact there's quite a few of them. The fact that you didn't bother to Google it, as I did, means you're not interested in reading it."

You were asked several times by several people to pony up a link. You didn't, which – coming from someone who posts a fraudulent misrepresentation of the American Anthropological Association's report on gay marriage – likely means you are making up this story, or you're giving a misleading exaggeration of something that happened. You're the one pushing this story, you should provide the link to it. Besides, you not posting the URL makes your story suspect.

[MikeAnon] said: "Also, I never said I wished *people* not to exist. I said I wished *homosexuality* not to exist."

Yeah, that is sheer delusion on your part. But you know this. And even if you don't wish the people not to exist, your words still suggested that. The homosexuals that you say you do love, such as your Elton Johns or George Takeis, would not be those very people if they weren't gay. It's just part of who they are, and their cumulative life experiences.

What a terribly scared person you are. It's sad, because you don't have to be.

[MikeAnon]: "… I'm not on that account in favor of warping our social institutions so that people can celebrate and promote imperfection as though it had any part in what is ideal — namely heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage."

Not warping. Evolving. So sorry that people finally accepting on a bigger and bigger scale, that which has existed for all time, ruins your every day happiness. How funny that this bothers you to the extent that it eats into your mind like spiders that crawl into your ears at night to lay eggs.

Anonymous said: "As for the "screed" you refer to. I simply Googled the subject and that's one of the things that came up… so I presented it in total for readers to make up their own minds as to whether it had any merit…and also to demonstrate that there is a large diversity of opinion on the subject."

And yet you posted a fraudulent thesis by someone affiliated with an organization that fuels anti-gay hatred and discrimination (of which I don't believe you weren't aware of), without even bothering to do any fact-checking.

Nice try, though.

You've had your say, and so have I. I stand by what I say, and am happy for those who have posted in support of the common sense we all share, that society is itself waking up to, when it comes to acknowledging the civil rights of those who are being denied them.

I do hope that as time goes by, you actually observe that gays are people with the same desires and goals as everyone else. That their sexuality is but the smallest of distinctions in life, not worthy of the fiery hatred and discrimination that has been waged against them for all time.

The world is changing for the better in this regard. If you can't get on board with the evolution, then step out of the way. It's marching steadily forward, whether you like it or not.

Anonymous

Re: JayJay said "Anonymous, people will never agree on what to tolerate […] people who live their lives very differently from me can still be good people and have things to say that are well worth listening to."

I fished this reply out of the rest. That anonymous would be me. Yeah I guess I agree, but I've also seen behavior tolerated (like drug abuse) that destroyed people. So the tolerance concept has been both used and abused.

Brandy said…"Defiant1, just because YOU don't care about marriage benefits does not invalidate the interest in them of those who do. And you are quite incorrect about procreation being the basis for the legal recognition of a union."

I care about people getting benefits based upon unjustified or invalid motivations and reasons. I seem to faintly recall a study that justified the tax breaks and presented reasons why married couples are more productive citizens. I think it's BS. Especially, if encouraging marriage eventually leads to more breaks ups.

I did not say procreation was a legal basis for a union. It is my definition. I feel that opening the definition is a slippery slope to chaos. Marriage being defined as the union of a man and woman has been the prevalent perception by society for hundreds and thousand of years.

Pair bonding is a hormone (chemically) motivated decision. It is tied to the release of Oxytocin in the body. Using "Love" as a justification to grant same sex marriages is just as screwed up as all the women who were reportedly in love with Jeffrey Dahmer in prison.

If "Love" and "Commitment" is the sole justification for legal rights, then women would be marrying boxes of chocolate and men would be marrying their cars.

With the move of electronics towards artificial intelligence, the laws really need to sort out whether it's legal to marry a man made object that can think for itself. Is it legal to rewrite the programming code on you android wife?

I pose one question.

What is the scope of intent of laws and legislation that reward couples for being married? Is the scope reviewed and updated regularly, or is it an arbitrarily assigned by people for the purpose of showing bias and favoritism.

I'm not married. I don't care if I ever get married. I have one person of the opposite sex that makes me the happiest I've ever been in my life. Neither myself nor the person I love seek validation with a tag applied to how we interact. That is my journey.

I don't have a lot of compassion for people's need to be validated. I don't have a lot of compassion for people who look at the small picture and ignore the big picture which has greater implications.

Anonymous

I didn't say it was a legal principle…more of a moral or societal one. I'm talking about the principle (and the age old-custom) of men and women marrying. Not men and men and women and women.

That's why relationships between homosexual couples have traditionally never been regarded as the same as hetrosexual ones. And the burden of proof still rests with those who claim it is or should be, in the majority's opinion.

You must be a first…a lawyer who's trying to talk themself out of a job which they can charge an arm and a leg for.

Jeff Z, what's the difference? Comparing me to ignorant bigots is a way of calling me an ignorant bigot.

And I'm still waiting to hear someone explain how taking two kids away from their grandparents (two blood relations) and giving them to two guys is a "change for the better".

Remember, every gay couple who adopts denies some kid the right to be brought up by a mother AND a father. Basic biological principle…men and women have babies, gay couples don't. Therefore babies are best brought up by a hetrosexual couple. It's Nature's way.

Jeff Z

Anonymous

Unsigned anonymous wrote:

Brandy, I hardly think that the law should be changed merely to save some group a few bucks. Okay, it'd be convenient for them for sure, but it's hardly the basis on which to drastically change a centuries old principle.———

Exactly which legal principle is that?

In any case, it's not a matter of chugging the law to save some group a few bucks. Heterosexual cohabitants can be legally married if they want those legal benefits. Homosexual couples cannot. That is unfair no matter how you look at it, and one centuries old principle is equal protection under the law, which is enshrined in the Constitution, which is, in fact, silent about marriage.

Anonymous

I also find it astounding that no one has yet expressed any sympathy or concern in the case of the grandparents and the kids taken away from them. All we've had is some pathetic attempt to cast doubt on the story's veracity. Some people's much trumpeted concern for civil rights seems to be rather selective and confined to their own pet special interest groups, huh?

Anonymous

Jeff Z, why do you continue to misrepresent the facts? I certainly would never have called Martin Luthor King a Communist or opposed what he stood for. Is that what you're reduced to? Attributing false prejudices to those you know nothing about. You've lost the argument with that little move, buddy. As for name callers…I think you'll find that's ja.

As for James Dobson, never heard of him before I posted his comments and conclusions, but you'll find his views are shared by people in all walks of life, many far more honourable than you claim he is. As for misrepresenting views of researchers, perhaps he was merely taking them to their logical conclusions.

Not everyone believes the same things for the same reasons. Some people might believe in God, for example, because they're overwhelmed by what they regard as convincing evidence. Others might do so because they're superstitious, or because they've been brought up to do so.

Point is, same destination, different routes to get there. You can't tar everyone with the same brush as regards their opinions on any subject. It's the same with the gay issue. Not everyone is against gays adopting because they hate them, as you and others try to suggest. That's far too simplistic an outlook.

Jeff Z

The founder Of Focus on the Family himself, James Dobson (who lauded potential first lady Karen Santorum, a woman who slept with the doctor who delivered her, over former mistress Candice Gingrich), was exposed misrepresenting research by the researchers themselves. Anonymous is truly reaching quoting studies from their angle. People like Anonymous and MikeAnon opposed Martin Luther King 50 years ago, calling him a Communist and worse (though that was about the worst thing one could be called at the time). MLK has a holiday now. All the name callers have is alegacy which continues at the hands of idiots and cowards.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Xavier Lancel, tell that to the grandparents who had their grandchildren taken away and given to two gay guys. The grandparents didn't want it and the kids didn't want it. Didn't hurt them at all, right?

Brandy, I hardly think that the law should be changed merely to save some group a few bucks. Okay, it'd be convenient for them for sure, but it's hardly the basis on which to drastically change a centuries old principle.

And I think you'll find that government defines its citizens all the time. They merely shuffle the definitions around a bit every so often when it's advantageous to government. If it's also to the benefit of some other group, that's usually just a secondary consideration.

Anonymous

Two commenters wrote:

"Learn your facts first. What other "legally recognized manner" would that be? Name it explicitly – or you don't know what you're talking about"

Make a will, or have everything in joint names. Simple as that. If two people love one another like you say, then surely they'd sort that out before it ever became an issue. Why award them the same status as married couples simply so that they can benefit financially?

———

As an attorney, I used to draft wills, living wills, powers of attorney, trusts, and various other documents for my gay and lesbian clients. Each time I would get paid (and believe you me, it was a lucrative little bit of side business), I would observe, "If only you could legally marry, not only would you have saved this money, but all the time and trouble you had to take in getting it done." Which is considerable.

Also, the proponent of doing things this way should realize that most people don't take the time to have even a basic will prepared, regardless of sexual orientation. (Have you, BTW?)

Government exists to serve its citizens, not to define them. If there is a "default" position for a coupling between adults, it should be available to and shared by all who choose to partake in such couplings.

Defiant1, just because YOU don't care about marriage benefits does not invalidate the interest in them of those who do. And you are quite incorrect about procreation being the basis for the legal recognition of a union. I do agree with you that the laws could be pitched in general, however.

Just wanted to thank and reward Jacob for his patience and the pertinence of his comments.I'm personnaly totally tired of those people trying to lower other peoples and hiding being fake "good" attitudes, especially when those liberties they want to deny others do no hurt anybody at all!

Anonymous

No, ja, the link exists…in fact there's quite a few of them. The fact that you didn't bother to Google it, as I did, means you're not interested in reading it. Which proves you aren't interested in researching, or listening to, opposing views to your own. That's the definition of a bigot.

As for the "screed" you refer to. I simply Googled the subject and that's one of the things that came up. There's quite a few, for and against. I've no connection to the man or the organisation, never having heard of him before. It was relevant to the topic, so I presented it in total for readers to make up their own minds as to whether it had any merit…and also to demonstrate that there is a large diversity of opinion on the subject.

Now, I think it's worth reminding everyone (again, hopefully for the final time) who like to indulge in hurling bad-tempered insults at those with a different point of view, just what you're getting so hot under the collar about.

I've never gone on an anti-gay march, never signed an anti-gay petition, never attended an anti-gay rally, never voted for anti-gay leglisation, never hurled verbal public abuse at any gay people, and, on the few occasions I've worked with anyone who was gay, treated them perfectly civilly and not as if they were lepers.

However, if you were to ask me if I think homosexuals should be given the right to adopt, I would say "Personally, I don't think so." I feel that I or anyone who shares that point of view should be entitled to express it without being treated like a baby-murderer and insulted for my opinion.

It's not as if I'm saying that gays shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children, which seems to be what ja is suggesting I'm saying. I just think the best interest of the children should be put before the desires of some people who see adoption as a way of socially engineering society into accepting them as being "as good as" married hetrosexual people.

The fact that a few disgruntled people with an ax to grind, and who are far too eager than is normal to leap to the "defense" of a group which would probably ignore my opinion, speaks volumes as to who the real bigots are on this page.

You only have to look at who's been doing the most name-calling to see that I'm right. All because I simply exercised my freedom of speech.

It's like being accused of being guilty of all the sins of Nazism for simply saying that Hitler had a good idea about an economical family car.

It's also strange that those who shout loudest about tolerance and acceptance for their own special interest groups, are the worst at demonstrating those qualities to the folks they disagree with.

I've seen the word "asshole" being hurled about on this page. By those with an anal fixation perhaps?

Anonymous

Anonymous

"[MikeAnon] said: 'With regard to the whole "subhuman" business: Saying that someone has something wrong with him/her does not in any way mean that person is subhuman.'

Not on the surface. But the extent to which so many people go to rationalize these viewpoints – even to go so far as to wish people not to exist at all, which you did earlier in this thread – absolutely is the same as saying that gays are subhuman."

[MikeAnon:] Isn't that kind of like saying, "Belief in evolution could (and some say did) lead to eugenics and pogroms, and for that reason people shouldn't believe in evolution, regardless of whether it's true?" What matters most is that the truth be told, not what derivative beliefs and actions might result from telling it.

Also, I never said I wished *people* not to exist. I said I wished *homosexuality* not to exist. I like having Elton John and George Takei around. But I make no bones about saying the world would be a better place if Elton John and George Takei were straight. True, their relationships with their "husbands" would naturally have to morph into another form consistent with their newfound heterosexuality, but that's largely why I don't support gay marriage in the first place — if the world were perfect, these "marriages" wouldn't exist, so who am I to support these "marriages" and in doing so support "locking in" a little piece of what is imperfect about the world? Granted, the world is not perfect and never will be, but I'm not on that account in favor of warping our social institutions so that people can celebrate and promote imperfection as though it had any part in what is ideal — namely heterosexuality and heterosexual marriage. [–MikeAnon]

Focus on the Family is among the leading anti-gay, so-called 'faith-based' organizations with a distinct agenda which helps drive the religious right's anti-gay crusade.

Glenn T. Stanton has been called out by the American Anthropological Association, who wrote a letter to Focus on the Family calling out Stanton for his "gross misrepresentation of the position of the anthropological community on gay marriage."

Founded in 1902, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) is the world's largest organization of individuals interested in anthropology. The AAA has remained the central society for the discipline of anthropology, addressing with considerable success its increasingly varied interests and speaking for anthropology to other fields, the federal and state governments, and the public.

So they know when a lying hack such as Glenn Stanton is fraudulently representing their research.

So when reading Glenn T. Stanton's dishonest thesis, please consider the source of a man who purposely misleads as a means to help denigrate and deny equal rights to gays.

Anonymous said: "As for the link…Google it. It ain't hard to find."

Which means that link – and probably that story – doesn't exist. LOL!

"That's the true mark of a bigot and a fascist. If you want to see what a real one looks like, look in the mirror.

Thank you, John McCain! You remind me of what the Republicans are doing quite a bit in recent years, which is taking all the negative things that they are, and trying to lay those very labels onto anyone who stands up to them. Hilarious thing is that it doesn't work.

i told myself years ago to not engage in online debates with bigots because if people are looking for a reason to dog on different folks there's most likely nothing i can say that's gonna change their minds.

but I have to say when i saw this all i thought was "Seig Heil" –

[MikeAnon:] Because while the world may not be perfect, any deliberate choice that sets us even farther away from a perfect world is wrong, plain and simple. [–MikeAnon]

so from here on out i'm just gonna ignore mr master race.

all i know is when my friend Herb came out of the closet (he was 19) he was so happy to have the acceptance of his friends. he had lived his whole life trying to be straight, but since he was gay he was just pretending. and he's been a much happier and saner person now that he's not living a lie. i remember how hard it was for me to be an overweight comic-book-loving virgin in high school – imagine what it'd be like to be gay too? but some folks are unable to sympathize or ever try to put themselves in other peoples shoes. the world is a big place and there's a lot of different kinda of people out there. i can't claim to understand everything or everyone, but if someone want to make themselves happy and they are not directly hurting anyone else, then more power to them.

and sure, there's always gonna be some assholes who have to find fault in lifestyles they don't share, there's nothing i can do about that.

i've been lurking on this board for months and i am sorry to add to the non-shooter noise, but while everyone is entitled to their own opinion there are gay kids committing suicide on a regular basis and ya know, some anti-gay folks just don't care about that. it's a shame.

I live in Washington and we're on the road to legalizing gay marriage (yay!) and this just happened –

Anonymous

RE: "This is off-topic (on-topic?), but I wondered if Jim (or anyone else) had thoughts about the $17,000 judgment Marvel won against Gary Friedrich , who I gather does not have near the ability to pay it. I haven't thought through all of the possible implications, but at first glance it does make Marvel appear quite petty and cruel. Is there any reason Marvel can't just walk away from their claim, even if they can't bring themselves to compensate Friedrich for his role in Ghost Rider's creation?"

That sounds like one of those "defend the trademark" suits. If you are aware of a violation of your trademark and you don't take action, the property can become public domain. While at Marvel, a number of times in situations like this, I managed to convince the bosses upstairs to grant the person in Friedrich's position a license for a dollar. I don't know the facts in this case. Maybe Marvel, having squelched the infringement, will now act generously and mercifully. Maybe there's a lot more to the situation that we don't know.

It does sort of bring up the issue of artists routinely infringing on publishers' trademarks by selling sketches at conventions. So far, publishers have turned a blind eye to that. If that situation blows up, it will be messy….

Anonymous

"You being so upset with me that you've now spent all this time trying to uphold your indefensible hateful attitudes toward those who are different than you is my shining badge of honor."

Ah, a fanatic with a cause…that explains everything. They're the people who wish to subjugate or kill anyone who disagrees with them. Or in your case, ja, wish bad karma upon.

And I ain't trying to defend any hateful attitudes…only the right to disagree with you and not be villified for it. You still don't get it do you? Ignorant as well as stupid.

As for the link…Google it. It ain't hard to find.

ja said…

"Loving parents are loving parents."

And so are grandparents? So why take the kids away from them. It's f*cked up the lives of the grandparents and the k*ds. What happened in that situation is indefensible, but no sympathy from you over the grandparents being denied their rights. Of course not, because your favourite group in all the world…gays…won out in this case. You're the worst kind of bigot…a self-righteous one who only cares about his own little pet group. (Of which you are obviously one. No point denying it any longer.)

Anonymous

Anonymous

• Children from stepfamilies, where the biological father is missing, are 80 times more likely to have to repeat a grade and twice as likely to be expelled or suspended, compared to children living with both biological parents. (Nicholas Zill, “Understanding Why Children in Stepfamilies Have More Learning and Behavior Problems Than Children in Nuclear Families,” in Alan Booth and Judy Dunn, eds., Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994), p. 100.)

ConclusionA wise and compassionate society always comes to the aid of children in motherless or fatherless families, but a wise and compassionate society never intentionally subjects children to such families. But every single same-sex home would do exactly that, for no other reason than that a small handful of adults desire such kinds of families.

There is no research indicating such homes will be good for children. In fact the data show us that the family experimentation we have subjected children to over the past 30 years has all failed to improve human well-being in any important way. What makes us think more of it will make the situation any better? It will only make life for our children dramatically worse.

Anonymous

It is Unethical To Subject Children To an Untested Social ExperimentNo human culture anywhere, at any time, has ever raised a generation of children in same-sex homes. This is an experiment upon children to fulfill adult wishes to parent.

The family changes over the last four decades — with its baggage of no-fault divorce, cohabitation, unwed childrearing and fatherlessness – have shown beyond doubt that these changes have been a wholesale negative for child well-being.

Consider the research on just one of these previous experiments.

Similar to the same-sex family experiment, we entered our national divorce experiment with all the best of hopes and intentions. Advocates pushing the divorce experiment called forth a few authorities who assured us that children are resilient and they would adjust to living apart from their parents. “Love would see them through” we were told, much like same-sex family advocates seek to assure us today.

Well, the millions of children who were subjected to this experiment tell us a different story, as witnessed by multiple studies:

• The American Academy of Pediatrics, the same organization that tells us the same-sex family will work out just fine, now tells us that divorce “is a long, searing experience…characterized by painful loses.” (Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, “The Pediatrician’s Role in Helping Children and Families Deal with Separation and Divorce,” Pediatrics 94 (1994): 119)

• “Divorce is usually brutally painful to a child,” and 25 percent of adult children of divorce continue to have “serious social, emotional, and psychological problems.” Meanwhile, only 10 percent of adult children from intact families had such problems. (E. Mavis Hetherington, For Better or For Worse: Divorce Reconsidered, (New York: W.W. Norton, 2002), p. 7)

• “Children in post-divorce families do not, on the whole, look happier, healthier, or more well-adjusted even if one or both parents are happier. National studies show that children from divorced and remarried families are more aggressive toward their parents and teachers. They experience more depression, have more learning difficulties, and suffer from more problems with peers than children from intact families. Children from divorced and remarried families are two to three times more likely to be referred for psychological help at school than their peers from intact families. More of them end up in mental health clinics and hospital settings.” (Judith Wallerstein et al., The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study, (New York: Hyperion, 2000), xxiii)

Also, a convincing body of research shows us that children do not do as well when their mothers or fathers marry other people. And since it is biologically impossible for a child living in a same-sex home to be living with both natural parents, all same-sex homes are either literally step-families – formed after the end of a heterosexual relationship – or step-like, in that only one parent has a biological connection to the child.

• “Social scientists used to believe that, for positive child outcomes, stepfamilies were preferable to single-parent families. Today, we are not so sure. Stepfamilies typically have an economic advantage, but some recent studies indicate that the children of stepfamilies have as many behavioral and emotional problems as the children of single-parent families, and possibly more. …Stepfamily problems, in short, may be so intractable that the best strategy for dealing with them is to do everything possible to minimize their occurrence.” (David Popenoe, “The Evolution of Marriage and the Problems of Stepfamilies,” in Alan Booth and Judy Dunn, eds., Stepfamilies: Who Benefits? Who Does Not? (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994), 5, 19.)

Anonymous

No Reliable Research Indicates Children in Same-Sex Homes Do As WellSame-sex advocates are quick to explain that many professional health organizations have explained that children in same-sex homes do just as well in important health measures as children in heterosexual homes.

Their statements neglect a vital point of comparison. One must examine exactly what they have said, and what they have not said in order to understand what this actually means for child welfare.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the leading medical organization to make such a statement, and which most other organizations followed, simply said, “a growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.”

So curious people must ask, do the children with two gay or lesbian parents look like children with heterosexual intact, married parents? Do they look like children with hetero-divorced parents? Single parents? Hetero stepparents? Cohabiting parents?

Nowhere in the AAP’s research, nor in any of the studies they cited, are we told. If the AAP’s statement is going to tell us anything objectively useful, then the family structure of the heterosexual homes being compared is essential because the outcomes for each is dramatically different in nearly every important measure of child AND adult well-being.

This oversight deems the AAP statement utterly meaningless in providing any kind of decisive information on how helpful or harmful same-sex families could be to children. It essentially claims, “Kids from lesbian-parented homes look like children from some kinds of heterosexual-parented home.” It says nothing specific about the quality or health-outcomes of lesbian- or gay-headed homes because some forms of heterosexual-parented homes are healthy and some are not.

Same sex parenting advocates have made no attempt in any professional literature to clarify this by specifically saying what kind of hetero-homes the same-sex homes in the studies were compared to.

Anonymous

Research Indicates Children Do Best When Raised By Married Mom & DadQuotes from leading scholarly summaries of this research:

• “An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents. … Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seems to support child development.” (Kristin Anderson Moore, et al., “Marriage From a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” Child Trends Research Brief (June 2002): 1.)

• “Most researchers now agree that together these studies support the notion that, on average, children do best when raised by their two married, biological parents.” (Mary Parke, “Are Married Parents Really Better for Children?” Center for Law and Social Policy, Policy Brief (May 2003): 1)

• “Overall, father love appears to be as heavily implicated as mother love in offsprings’ psychological well-being and health.” (Ronald P. Rohner and Robert A. Veneziano, “The Importance of Father Love: History and Contemporary Evidence,” Review of General Psychology 5.4 (2001): 382-405)

• Health scores are 20 to 35 percent higher for children living with both biological parents, compared with those living in single or stepfamilies. (Deborah A. Dawson, “Family Structure and Children’s Health and Well-being: Data from the National Health Interview Survey on Child Health,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53 (1991): 573 -584)

• “When young boys have primary caretakers of both sexes, they are less likely as adults to engage in woman-devaluing activities and in self-aggrandizing, cruel or overly competitive male cults.” (Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, My Brother’s Keeper: What the Social Sciences Do (and Don’t) Tell Us About Masculinity, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), p. 121)

• “We should disavow the notion that ‘mommies can make good daddies,’ just as we should disavow the popular notion of radical feminists that ‘daddies can make good mommies.’ …The two sexes are different to the core, and each is necessary – culturally and biologically – for the optimal development of a human being.” (David Popenoe, Life Without Father: Compelling New Evidence That Fatherhood and Marriage are Indispensable of the Good of Children and Society, (New York: The Free Press, 1996), p. 197)

Sara McLanahan of Princeton University, one of the world’s leading scholars on how family form impacts child well-being, explains from her extensive investigations:

• “If we were asked to design a system for making sure that children’s basic needs were met, we would probably come up with something quite similar to the two-parent family ideal. Such a design, in theory, would not only ensure that children had access to the time and money of two adults, it would provide a system of checks and balances that promote quality parenting. The fact that both adults have a biological connection to the child would increase the likelihood that the parents would identify with the child and be willing to sacrifice for that child and it would reduce the likelihood that either parent would abuse the child.” (Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 38)

Anonymous

The simple answer is “yes,” but the more precise question is “disadvantaged compared to what?”

There is a wealth of solid social, medical and psychological research indicating that children who grow up without their own married mother and father in the home face significant disadvantages in all important measures of well-being: physical and mental health, educational attainment, general happiness, confidence and empathy development, as well as protection from poverty, substance abuse, domestic violence and sexual abuse and avoidance of unmarried child-bearing.

Children who grow-up in any other family form — single-parent family, divorced, step-family, or cohabiting parents – don’t do as well by up to half in these measures compared to children living with their own married mother and father.

Said another way, none of the changes to family form over the last four decades has improved any important measure of child well-being, and no evidence to date indicates that same-sex parenting would be an improvement on any of these other forms.

I was sitting here working on checklists of Valiant and Defiant stuff that I still need to get my greedy little hands on (I've got most of the Valiant stuff that I need – i.e. the Jim era and some optional later ones. Now, if anyone's got a cheap Magnus #0…? Or Harbinger #1…?) and happened to stumble upon this:

ja

"Try telling that to the grandparents who had their grandkids taken from them and given to a gay couple, and who were bullied into it with the threat of not seeing them again if they objected."

You still haven't provided a link to this story.

"Gay adoption does f*ck with other people's lives. It f*cks with the lives of the children themselves in being denied a mother figure, it f*cks with the lives of all the other relatives of the kids who may not approve…not necessarily from "homophopia" as you call it, but from a desire to see the kids brought up with a mother and father figure rather than two dads or two moms.

Loving parents are loving parents. No need to be superstitiosly stringent about requiring a mom and a dad in a world where single parents and gay parents do as good a job as anyone else raising children.

"Also, I've taken nothing you've said out of context. You're remarks speak for themselves and stand condemned by their own hostile tone."

Sometimes you have to fight Uglier with Ugly. You and your harmful attitudes are certainly Uglier, and I'm one of the people who has no problem getting Ugly with bigots.

"That marks you out for what you are…and it ain't the saint you seem to think."

What I am is someone who stands up to the kind of shitty attitudes that you and people like you exhibit. I'm backed up with a nice chorus of other people who agree with me, too.

You being so upset with me that you've now spent all this time trying to uphold your indefensible hateful attitudes toward those who are different than you is my shining badge of honor.

I and others here understand all too well where you're coming from. That's why we've all spoken out. What you've actually said is full of dog-whistles of ignorance and hatred. The sensible people here who have spoken out know exactly what you and others like you are talking about.

I hope you have new neighbors who are gay couples who have children, and that their happiness you can't ever accept drives you even more batshit as time goes on. Or, until you finally realize that you've been wrong about this all along.

Anonymous

Gay adoption does f*ck with other people's lives. It f*cks with the lives of the children themselves in being denied a mother figure, it f*cks with the lives of all the other relatives of the kids who may not approve…not necessarily from "homophopia" as you call it, but from a desire to see the kids brought up with a mother and father figure rather than two dads or two moms.

The almost unanimous consensus of experts and scientific bodies is that children raised by homosexual fare just as well as children raised by heterosexual parents (see, for example, this statement from the American Psychological Association and this report from the American Academy of Pediatrics). There is simply no evidence to support the idea that children need to be raised by both a woman and a man (there is some evidence to support the idea that two parents are preferable to one, but we do not remove children from single parents or outlaw single-parent adoptions).

Anonymous

"I don't see anything I've said as 'insults, hate and vitriol'. I see what I've said as a response to the hatred you exhibit."

The only thing I've exhibited is a desire for those of a different viewpoint to your own to be able to express it without being subjected to your (or anyone else's) vicious verbal attacks.

I'll say it once more, because you obviously had a seat at the back of the class. Nobody is calling for gays to be physically or verbally abused in any way. (Well, I'm certainly not.) That doesn't mean I have to agree with your assessment on what they're entitlements are in regard to adoption, any more than I have to agree with you on the entitlements of any group of people in regard to anything.

As for the following…

'The proper Anonymous said it very well: "The anti-gay people actually want to fuck with other people's lives. The pro-gay group does not" '

Try telling that to the grandparents who had their grandkids taken from them and given to a gay couple, and who were bullied into it with the threat of not seeing them again if they objected.

Gay adoption does f*ck with other people's lives. It f*cks with the lives of the children themselves in being denied a mother figure, it f*cks with the lives of all the other relatives of the kids who may not approve…not necessarily from "homophopia" as you call it, but from a desire to see the kids brought up with a mother and father figure rather than two dads or two moms.

And you call that NOT f*cking with people's lives? Brother, you're on a whole other planet. (I'll resist the obvious "Uranus" joke. You'd see it as a hate filled insult rather than the jest it is.)

Also, I've taken nothing you've said out of context. You're remarks speak for themselves and stand condemned by their own hostile tone.

Whether or not your brother should feel uncomfortable or not is debatable, but it's not the issue. What is the issue is the delight you take from another's misery. That marks you out for what you are…and it ain't the saint you seem to think.

Now, you're a spent force, with nothing interesting or worthwhile to say. All you're doing is repeating your past absurdities and revealing that you've never quite understood where I'm coming from. (Or perhaps you did and that's why you bent it out of shape into something you could assault with your well-rehearsed supply of hostility.) Whatever, you've seldom addressed what I ACTUALLY said.

Anonymous

ja

"You are the worst culprit on this page ja, for hurling insults, hate and vitriol at those you disagree with, while at the same time posturing as a model of tolerance, kindness, understanding, benevolence and all the things you actually aren't."

I don't see anything I've said as 'insults, hate and vitriol'. I see what I've said as a response to the hatred you exhibit.

The proper Anonymous said it very well: "The anti-gay people actually want to fuck with other people's lives. The pro-gay group does not"

So the things I say, out of context, sure do sound insulting. But they're not. They're righteous responses to you being representative to all those other hateful voices out there, contributing to fucking with other people's lives.

I do enjoy the fact that my brother, who regales me with tales on how black people are genetically less intelligent than whites in this world, is uncomfortable in his having to deal with his daughter being gay. He should feel uncomfortable, and I have no apologies for it.

Anonymous

"AND THERE IT IS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! THE LAST DESPERATE ARGUMENT FROM A HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT: CONNECTING PEDOPHILIA TO HOMOSEXUALITY.

Just by mentioning pedophilia in conjunction with a debate about the civil rights of gays, proves you to be the hateful piece of crap human being you were already showing yourself to be."

Strange that you conveniently ignore my reference to bestiality and drug users in the same sentence. According to your warped thinking, I was likewise equating homosexuality and drug abuse to humping animals. What? No Protest?

Anyone with a modicum of intelligece realises that all I was "equating" with homosexuals was the POSITION IN RELATION TO RIGHTS which these groups claim to be in, not their actual behaviour. (I even made the distinction, but yet again you twisted what I said to suit your own agenda.)

Anyone but you ja, because you're determined to think the way you do in spite of any evidence to the contrary. You remind me of the guy who went to his doctor because he was convinced he was dead. The doctor spent a great deal of time talking with him and explaining all the reasons why he couldn't be dead. In the end he got the patient to accept the following important principle…dead men don't bleed. The guy was utterly convinced on this one point. Thereupon the doctor pricks the guy's finger with a syringe and a little trickle of blood runs down his digit. The guy looks at the blood and says…"Well, whaddya know? Dead men DO bleed!"

You are the worst culprit on this page ja, for hurling insults, hate and vitriol at those you disagree with, while at the same time posturing as a model of tolerance, kindness, understanding, benevolence and all the things you actually aren't. You're far too invested in this topic to be a casual bystander. Get help to accept the desires which you're obviously trying so hard to suppress. That's the problem, isn't it? You're waiting for gays to be 100 per cent accepted and treated as equal before you leave your closet behind.

You said you enjoy seeing your brother's torment at having a gay daughter. Anyone who takes delight in that sort of thing is one sick person. At least all your hate-filled bile has helped me to work out what "ja" stands for…jack-ass!

Please, Jim, hurry up with a post about, let me think…COMICS! On the topic of that row in the Irish restaurant, it strikes me that, even back in the 80s, tensions didn't run quite as high as that here in the Republic of Ireland, despite us being on the same island as the bulk of the violence, as they did in that premises…maybe the Irish abroad compensate for their exile by becoming more "Irish" in certain ways, I don't know. I was more into Marvel comics than any polticial or idealogical struggle in Northern Ireland back then…had I read that issue of WOSM, most likely I would have been pleased that Spidey visited Belfast!

Anonymous, people will never agree on what to tolerate, or on much of anything else for that matter, but if you try to teach children what's right and teach them tolerance in general, they'll have a better chance to grow up and decide for themselves what they think. Because those darn kids will think for themselves no matter what anyone does anyway. lol.

I come from a fairly traditional 50's/60's upbringing and a nice family, but I saw the sense in the radical human rights concepts prevalent in the 60's. My family may or may not share all of my tolerant points of view, I can't speak for them, though I suppose it's possible I may be open-minded to excess in some folks reckoning. But my experiences in life have taught me that people who live their lives very differently from me can still be good people and have things to say that are well worth listening to.

Anonymous

Although I think this was basically a vindication suit by Marvel. It does make me think of how they are now owned by Disney, and Disney is absolutely famous for tracking down every unauthorized use of Mickey Mouse on the Web, and has made preschools paint over pictures of Disney characters on their walls

Anonymous

I doubt a statement from Marvel would be anything but something generic and diplomatic. You gotta ask, why would Marvel go after a former marvel creator? And for selling some unlicensed t-shirts at conventions?? There are whole vendors at every comic convention with booths full of unlicensed t-shirts.

I would also argue that the courts do not understand the nuances of the work-for-hire/character creator situation in comics. They probably looked at this like some kind of scalping situation, rather than understanding that a writer who worked on a character is going to be asked to sign merchandise of a character that technically does not belong to him. I think it would take a very, very bright defense lawyer to explain all of this to a judge in a way they could understand it

ja

I think this is the beginning of the big ramp-up for Marvel – and subsequently all the other companies – to start cracking down on all the artists who are doing sketches and commissions at conventions or online.

I think it's going to be a very bumpy ride with tons of potholes and land mines in the comics industry over the next 5 years or so, where this is concerned.

Anonymous

Oops, sorry I missed that. But I can't be blamed, right? I mean, look at this mess of a thread. Anyway, has there been any official (or unofficial) comment from anyone at Marvel? I'd like to hear their side, assuming they have one, before dropping the judgment hammer on them.

Obtusiveness

Anonymous

This is off-topic (on-topic?), but I wondered if Jim (or anyone else) had thoughts about the $17,000 judgment Marvel won against Gary Friedrich, who I gather does not have near the ability to pay it. I haven't thought through all of the possible implications, but at first glance it does make Marvel appear quite petty and cruel. Is there any reason Marvel can't just walk away from their claim, even if they can't bring themselves to compensate Friedrich for his role in Ghost Rider's creation?

Anonymous

Let me boil it down for everyone.

The world is full of different people

In this case, if we group them as pro-gay and anti-gay – here is the big difference. Pay attention now, because it is an important difference. The anti-gay people actually want to fuck with other people's lives. The pro-gay group does not

That's it. The rest of this discussion is jut people talking about their differences and their different beliefs

Anonymous

Oblivious

I bet anonymous would argue that taking laws against homosexuality off the books would lead to making child molestation legal. It's the same idiotic thinking, isn't it? Speaking of Obama, what % of "birthers" are anti-gay ? I'd bet it's well over 97%. Because that's the kind of defective thinking you'd expect of them.

ja

"Pedophiles would probably claim they're being denied their civil rights. People who have carnal knowledge of animals would do the same. Drug users in prison claim their rights are denied them because they're not supplied drugs by the state to feed their 'illness'.

AND THERE IT IS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! THE LAST DESPERATE ARGUMENT FROM A HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT: CONNECTING PEDOPHILIA TO HOMOSEXUALITY.

Just by mentioning pedophilia in conjunction with a debate about the civil rights of gays, proves you to be the hateful piece of crap human being you were already showing yourself to be.

"Now, before anyone accuses me of equating consenting adult sex with pedophilia [TOO LATE! You just did that all on your own.], that's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing out the no one has any automatic rights to anything apart from what the state grants them.

And yet you use pedophilia as your qualifier? You were absolutely making the connection between pedophilia and homosexuality.

I like that you're the way you are. I enjoy knowing that as you get older, you will be more bitter, more alone, and more cancerous. You are the battery that charges the progression of equal rights of gays.

You are similar in example to that crazy old woman in the red sweatshirt and the ratty hair that got up on a nationally televised John McCain rally, took the microphone and said, "I've heard that Sen. Obama is an Arab." McCain knew she was a terrible representative for his campaign. That lady was one of the wonderful batteries that charged people up to vote for Barack Obama.

Thank you for being one of the strongest Progressive batteries I have ever seen.

Anonymous

Aton o' grouse

Anonymous

Well, I'm not going over everything again just because ja has difficulty understanding plain English. I've already pointed out the error in his logic and his lack of comprehension on what the subject actually is. (Same goes for Ole.)

Pedophiles would probably claim they're being denied their civil rights. People who have carnal knowledge of animals would do the same. Drug users in prison claim their rights are denied them because they're not supplied drugs by the state to feed their 'illness'.

Now, before anyone accuses me of equating consenting adult sex with pedophilia, that's not what I'm doing. I'm pointing out the no one has any automatic rights to anything apart from what the state grants them.

Gays have the same rights as anybody else these days as far as I'm aware. You're not taxed for being gay, neither are you jailed, harassed by the government, or particularly have to hide it from any one unless you want to.

But just because you have got the same rights as everybody else in most departments, it doesn't give you the same rights in ALL departments…and everyone, gay or straight, is in the same boat to some degree or other.

Those who maintain that gays are being denied the right to adopt are assuming it's a right they already have which is being withheld. Most people can see the distinction. Hetro couples have the right to adopt because having children comes within the province of most hetro couples.

Having children is not something homosexual couples can achieve between themselves; therefore there is no automatic right to something they can't do themselves anyway. (Procreate.)

If I go into a supermarket and there's a buy one get one free offer on, I've got to buy one to get the free one. Gays are like someone wanting the free one without buying the first one. They're claiming a right to something which does not fall within the province of their union and are therefore not entitled to.

At this point someone will object and say "What about straight couples that can't have children" as if it's the same thing. It isn't. Hetro couples who can't have kids are in that position because something has gone wrong. Gay couples could never produce kids between themselves anyway, so that's a limitation inherent in the nature of their relationship to begin with.

And ja, the Indian restaurant joke was told to me by a guy who was told it by his gay pal. Unlike you, some gays have a sense of humour. You're too busy posing as Peter Perfect. I don't trust anyone who is so eager to take offense on behalf of others (whether it be groups or individuals), who half the time wouldn't be offended themselves.

You've got something in common with at least 50 per cent of gays…you too are a pain in the ass.

Brent E

(90 minutes of reading later)

OK, seriously, how did I get brought into this one?

I've been all for the anonymous posting up until this point. I'm sorry, but whoever you are that keeps posting insults at me and trying to attribute things I haven't said, I don't plan on going anywhere.

Go back and read my comments; I'm not insulting anybody and I just like to talk about comics. You have no idea where I stand on gay rights, and I don't know where you stand (but only because the anonymous posters seem to be on both sides).

However, all I can tell is that one poster who uses anonymous will constantly accuse me of writing things which I haven't. In the other thread I was accused of name calling, asking for rules to be implemented, and complaining about anonymity (all by anonymous individuals). I didn't do any of that. (Go back and reread the thread: http://www.jimshooter.com/2012/01/10-million-comic-book.html?commentPage=2)

Now I'm getting lumped in with a bunch of bigots on a thread I haven't even posted on? Whoever you are, you are making it difficult to give credibility to anybody who posts anonymously if only because I realize how you prefer to attack people without reason.

Anonymous

kgaard, I was the one making claims about his thinking based on his actions. (Or lack of them.) Cause and effect. It's a recognized scientific principle…maybe you've heard of it?

Well, I know that causality is more properly understood as a philosophic term, with scientific applications, but why split hairs? I also know that inferring a cause from an effect with incomplete information is foolish or arrogant or both. But you've kind of gone back and forth on this, so at this point only you know what kind of claim you're making. Good luck sorting it out.

And me repeating what you wrote was irony. Maybe you've heard of that as well?

Er, okay, repeating what I wrote isn't ironic in any sense of the word, so I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here.

Seriously, though… I myself have in the past argued (futilely) in favour of taking off-topic discussions (politics, religion) "outside". I come here to read about Jim Shooter, his life and work, and the world of the artform of comics in general. I won't bring up any off-topic issues here (not on purpose, anyway. And by the way, although it was someone on "my side" who first brought up this particular issue here, I have to admit that I think that was probably not the best of ideas if one wants to avoid what happened afterwards). I won't engage in "traditional" political discussions here – I'll shut up, click "ignore" and move on. After some hesitation, I did however engage briefly in the religious debate around Christmas, objecting to some particularly intolerant comments. However, when faced with bigoted, hateful, intolerant and derogatory comments about people's NATURE, I refuse to "hold my peace" EVEN if it's so far off topic that it's insane. Whatever I say may not make any difference in the world, but I consider it my duty to say it anyway. And here is the background:

About a year ago, I was depressed enough about the state of the world that I decided to "take a break" from following the news for the first time in about 30 years. Not only was most news depressing enough in its own right, with wars, murders, poverty, persecution and human rights violations all over, but the Internet media's comments sections in particular seemed to be overflooding with a particular type of people who seemed (seems) to sit in front of their computer all day complaining about what's wrong with everybody else – generally those who are "not like us". Particularly popular targets here in Norway were immigrants in general, Muslims in particular and "communists," aka "traitors" (as we happen to have a centre-moderate left government in Norway at the moment).

(I should add for all you non-Norwegians that these Internet "debaters" seem to have adopted the standard American definition of "a communist", i.e. anyone left of the far right. I should also add for reference that the most far right party represented in our parliament probably falls politically somewhere inbetween the U.S. Democrats and Republicans).

These people semmed to have taken over the debate completely, squeezing out and scaring off any and all voices of reason, who presumably retreated to more civilised fora. Consequently, it (i.e. the hatred) seemed as if it was "the voice of the people". Even though we are of course talking about a small (but very vocal) minority, they were screaming so loudly that anyone with uninformed, prejudiced and bigoted opinions felt quite comfortable about voicing them anywhere, anytime. And we don't even have anything remotely like Fox News.

(Again, I respect anyone's right to be a hateful bigot, but I don't want anyone to feel comfortable about it).

I'd had enough. And for about six months I shut myself out from the world of news media (local news excluded).

Then July 22 happened. Someone had "finally" decided to go out and "do something" about the Muslims and the "traitors"…

I would MUCH prefer to counter the bigotry and hatred elsewhere rather than here. I'll more than gladly move on NOW to a comics related subject instead (and I do hope Jim soons puts up another post to get us back on track). But if anyone puts their hatred and prejudice on display, they SHOULD expect opposition.

I first saw two guys kiss when I was eight years old. It made me sick. It made me feel like I had witnessed something that simply should not ever happen. Eight years old. How does an eight-year-old "choose" to feel like that? And why should an eight-year-old who feels like that "choose" to ever feel otherwise? Homosexuality ISN'T supposed to happen. So why should we teach our children, who can recognize this fact on sight, that THEY need to change their natural feelings, rather than advise homosexuals that THEY need to control their natural feelings so as not to offend the normal people around them?

I know this is not going to be a popular post, but it needs to be said, especially in light of what's happened in California today: Something that clearly ought not to exist — that the world unquestionably would be better off without — has been put, probably without remedy, on the same plane as that which clearly needs to exist for the continuation of the species. If this doesn't disturb you to your core, I honestly don't know why.

Now that the opposing view's been heard from, I hope we can get back to talking about comics and leave delicate social and political matters aside, save for when those matters impact directly on the post at hand.

Next please let me know exactly what kind of behaviour you mean is so bad in the first place. And why it's worse than universal human rights.

Unsigned Anonymous said:

Jayjay said "Children need to be taught right and wrong. And intolerance is wrong. "

Umm sure. As long as we agree as to what it is we're tolerating.

Myself, I tolerate pretty much anything people might do that doesn't harm others. I also tolerate pretty much anything "consenting adults" decide to do together that doesn't harm others. I may not like it, it may not be "my thing", I may have no desire to do it myself, but whatever tickles your fancy and doesn't harm others – fine by me. I also tolerate pretty much all opinions and beliefs. I do reserve the right to speak up against opinions I disagree with, something I'm particularly prone to do when exposed to INtolerant opinions. (I must admit that although I try, my desire to act respectfully decreses the less respectful my opponent acts. Being a particularly non-violent person, I will always stick to words only, though).

You?

Anonymous signed Northstar said:

Why is some asshole pontificating about gay marriage on a comic book blog? Moreover, why is the same asshole stating that there is something wrong with someone just because they prefer a partner of the same sex on a comic book blog?

Finally, why are right wing bullies such assholes that they can't even let it go when on a comic book blog?

What the h?

And unsigned Anonymous said (quoting Jim), in possibly the best anonymous comment on this blog ever:

This is going to be a lot – sorry – but I hope it's my last contribution to this debate.

Unsigned Anonymous said:

Ole, yet another distortion. Mike Anon was referring to homosexual behaviour. That's not confined to just kissing.

Having had the fallacies of your argument exposed, you now seek to distract attention from the fact by resorting to mockery.

That's fine. Just so long as YOU know that WE know why.

LOL!

You guys are funny. Like it's my side who has wronged anyone. 🙂

But that's the usual strategy, isn't it? Everything from "we think all men and women should be treated as equals" ("You're ruining society!") to "we don't want to start wars and kill innocent people" ("Traitor!") can be turned around to try to make it look bad.

But I digress…

I feel I don't really have to twist the statement "the world would unquestionably be better off without homosexuality" (not to mention "…homsexuals") around to make it look bad. It manages that task pretty well on its own. To me, that statement doesn't look much different from "the world would unquestionably be better off without Jews" or "the world would unquestionably be better off without blacks" (or "(n-word)s").

I've read through my own comments here. I can't see that I have called anybody any names, nor have I characterised any person in an unfavourable manner – only their opinions. I have described certain attitudes as "hateful and bigoted", I have expressed an opinion that it must be a "poor, cheap and shameful" existence to be so filled with hate, and I have pointed out words and sentences in MikeAnon's original comment. I won't take responsibility for what others have written, but I haven't really seen anything from "my side" that I don't think is warranted.

Granted, there hasn't been a "let's all be friends and discuss this in a peaceful manner" tone over all of it, but I guess we're beginning to learn from "the other side" after all these years of bile and insults directed our way.

Presuming you are the same Anonymous (hard to tell with all of you Anonymice who refuse to even make up a callsign) who earlier said that I "have spectaculary failed to make your case, but have demonstrated how readily you are prepared to distort what people actually said"… Well, I honestly can't see that I've distorted anything, really, I just quoted what MikeAnon himself ACTUALLY wrote. To me his words seem quite clear, and it baffles me how you seem to think he's talking about "behaviour". To me it looks like he's saying (and again I'm quoting) that there's "something wrong with" gay people and that homosexuality "should not ever happen", "isn't supposed to happen", "ought not to exist" and that "the world unquestionably would be better off without" it, and that gay people "need to control their natural feelings so as not to offend the normal people around them". But I may be taking his words out of context?

So since there seems to be a need – below is a FULL, unedited repost (again) of MikeAnon's original comment. Read it carefully and then let me know where he talks about (or "refers to") behaviour, okay? I mean besides the kiss (*gasp!*) thing. 'Cause I really can't see it. :-O

I'm sorry to have to get into this, but it really offends me that when it comes to gay marriage the burden of "choice" is always placed on the people who have nothing wrong with them, whereas the people who do have something wrong with them are cast as having no "choice" at all.

ja

Anonymous said: "You may have missed it the first three times I said it, so here it is again:

"I merely joined this conversation to point out that for anyone to be insulted or attacked for not subscribing to the gay cause was just as bad… A very moderate view I'd humbly suggest."

I didn't miss it. I just identify that you weren't humble as you were maliciously ridiculing people for being who they are. That makes you part of the problem.

"I've only expressed an opinion on this page…not committed any action. So you're talking nonsense. And you're the one doing ALL of the mischaracterisation."

You also were also being mean and insulting. I refer you to your Indian restaurant metaphor. If you had said that to anyone's face, or on video, you would absolutely be identified as a hateful person who denigrates people for being different.

"You're assuming to be true that which you seek to prove."

You are the living proof about which I never assumed anything.

"I haven't expressed any hatred for gays."

I refer you to just one of your comments, again about the Indian restaurant. You wrote it. Try saying it was a joke, but it sure wasn't.

"Now, this is where I (hopefully) get off. I came in on this discussion to point out that people should be able to hold and express an opinion without being castigated for it."

Interesting phrasing, as it seems you are getting off by being the maliciously insulting person that you have been.

When you go to the vile characterizations as you have, anything else you say fade way into the background as people only see how hateful you're being when you jump into the insults.

Natural revulsion for others' sex acts is understandable. Fine, you like what you like. Lots of things I don't like. However, that should never (not in today's age) translate into restricting anyone's civil rights.

You're not a freak for your natural revulsion. You are a freak for standing in the way of someone's freedoms to enjoy constitutionally sanctioned equal rights.

You say the majority of people don't share in that view. Well, people are finally realizing that gays exist in their close friends and family circles. They understand that these people should not be denied their happiness in life. That sexuality just isn't a justified reason to deny people their rights.

I grew up in a family that didn't like the (N-word)s, the Jews, or anyone from Mexico (unless they were available to be hired for day work). Especially the Queers. I'm so grateful that I discovered early on how stupid this was. I admit to enjoying how my oldest brother's brain is all twisted around because his daughter's gay. I can see him walking around like a raw nerve about this, because he's so ashamed to let anyone know about her. But whenever he's around his daughter (and her daughter), all the consternation melts down into him being a loving dad and granddad.

I remind him of this on occasion, and though he superficially acknowledges it, I can see that it still doesn't really compute in that big thick rock that is his brain.

That's okay. Equal rights for gays in this country are marching forward, despite all those who would stand in their way. The funny part is, once this happens, all the angry bigots will then have to go searching for something else that they can openly discriminate against without being castigated for it.

Magnanimous

Anonymous

ja, you're main problem is that you're mixing up your anons and accusing them of all thinking the same way.

You may have missed it the first three times I said it, so here it is again:

"I merely joined this conversation to point out that for anyone to be insulted or attacked for not subscribing to the gay cause was just as bad (in principle if not degree) as people being insulted or attacked for being gay. In other words, neither was justified. A very moderate view I'd humbly suggest. But no. According to you. anyone of that opinion is akin to the Anti-Christ."

You say:

"I'm not concerned with opinions. Only actions like yours, which you demonstrate to be hateful and harmful to others by the way you insult and mischaracterize."

I've only expressed an opinion on this page…not committed any action. So you're talking nonsense. And you're the one doing ALL of the mischaracterisation.

You say:

"There is a clear difference between me speaking truth to bigots, versus you speaking discrimination and suppression of people's civil rights."

You're assuming to be true that which you seek to prove. There is a difference of opinion on what these 'civil' rights should be in the case of gays adopting. It's still being argued over in some states. Just because some of them have allowed themselves to cave in on the issue doesn't mean their decision was the right one.

You say:

"Sure you have an issue with this. Otherwise you wouldn't be fighting so hard to express your hatred for gays, and your desire to make them third-class citizens with no equal rights. You're being dishonest when you characterize people advocating for the rights of those who are currently denied theirs as being militant."

I haven't expressed any hatred for gays. You're mixing up your anony-mice again, although I don't think any of the others expressed 'hatred' either. That's your (mis)characterisation of their point of view.

You said:

"Bullies and oppressors don't like when people stand up to them, and your reaction to all this is a good example of that."

Actually, yours is an even better one. As I said previously, but you chose to ignore, your whole 'argument' consists of doing the following:

"In other words you preferred to ignore what I clearly said, and attach someone else's projected meaning onto my words. That's what's known as erecting a straw man. Not clever, not reasonable, not worthy. You can't deal with what people actually say, so you have to make it mean something else to give you an excuse to attack it."

Now, this is where I (hopefully) get off. I came in on this discussion to point out that people should be able to hold and express an opinion without being castigated for it. Also that some people have a natural revulsion to homosexual behaviour, which they are entitled to have without being made to feel they are some kind of freaks. It doesn't mean that they go on marches or vote for leglisation to deny gays their 'rights' (or what ja believes are their rights, even though the majority don't seem to share that view), or indulge any any other kind of action seeking to suppress homosexuals a voice. All it means is that they're not quite happy with what that voice is saying.

True bigots like ja can't accept that though, because he's too busy trying to portray himself as some kind of social champion of the underdog.

Isn't that how superheroes are often described? There…we're back on topic again. (But ja sure ain't no superhero.)

Anonymous

"Why is some asshole pontificating about gay marriage on a comic book blog? Moreover, why is the same asshole stating that there is something wrong with someone just because they prefer a partner of the same sex on a comic book blog?

Finally, why are right wing bullies such assholes that they can't even let it go when on a comic book blog?

What the h?"

-Northstar

Seems to me there's more than one asshole doing it. And why is another asshole pontificating on some assholes pontificating about gay marriage on a comic book blog? And why can't that asshole even let it go when on a comic book blog?

Jeff Z

Santorum's wife slept with the doctor who delivered her and he's worried about other people's sex lives?? A huge % of idiots against gay marriage were likely also convinced of WMDs in Iraq. Wrong about so many things…

Anonymous

ja

"If ja is going to argue that gays should have the same right that hetros do, then the grandparents should have been allowed to bring up the children they were related to. As actual relatives, shouldn't they have that right?"

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

[MikeAnon] said: "With regard to the whole "subhuman" business: Saying that someone has something wrong with him/her does not in any way mean that person is subhuman."

Not on the surface. But the extent to which so many people go to rationalize these viewpoints – even to go so far as to wish people not to exist at all, which you did earlier in this thread – absolutely is the same as saying that gays are subhuman.

Interesting that you advocated that, but now you don't own up to it.

History has shown that these kinds of attitudes die on the vine when a huge spotlight reveals how diseased those attitudes are. You're a good example of that.

Anonymous said: "Ja, did you check your comment against the unfailing wisdom of the Diceman?

Surely all bigotry and hatred can be excused by reference to the unquestioned philosophy and unbridled genius of Dice.

ja

"ja, never have I seen such a self-righteous tyrant try to bully people who do not share his views, or distort to such an extent what people are saying in order to attack a figment of his imagination."

I'm speaking up for a righteous cause. I've only clashed with those who choose – CHOOSE – to be ridiculing, insulting, and who suggest those people who are gay should not exist. I don't care that you don't share my views, but I always speak up against the attitudes and efforts to subjugate a class of people that does you no harm whatsoever.

I haven't distorted anything. It's sad that you can't see how your attitudes are harmful, but they are.

I'm not concerned with opinions. Only actions like yours, which you demonstrate to be hateful and harmful to others by the way you insult and mischaracterize. There is a clear difference between me speaking truth to bigots, versus you speaking discrimination and suppression of people's civil rights.

"The gay agenda is not an issue for me… I am probably indifferent to it in the main, except when they get militant and try and bully society into their way of thinking."

Sure you have an issue with this. Otherwise you wouldn't be fighting so hard to express your hatred for gays, and your desire to make them third-class citizens with no equal rights. You're being dishonest when you characterize people advocating for the rights of those who are currently denied theirs as being militant.

Bullies and oppressors don't like when people stand up to them, and your reaction to all this is a good example of that.

"… However, that doesn't fit in with the image you've tried to create of so-called homophobic boogie-men who are intent of robbing a certain class of people of their 'rights'."

They're not boogie-men. They're real. I'm conversing with you right now! Your characterization and protest of it being harmful that gays get married, or being able to adopt is just plain facile. But you are part of an age-old aristocratic barrier that over time, denied people their rights. Over time, that barrier has eroded, allowing for women and blacks to vote, segregation to be mostly dismantled, and one day it will allow for gays to be equal.

Even if you're not prejudiced against women, blacks, or interracial marriage, you must understand that it's the same kind of undeserved bigotry and oppression against gays, about the last group of people that conservatives and bigots feel okay to openly and loudly discriminate against. Different focus, same kind of prejudice and hatred.

The only gay cause I have talked about is the one that leads to equal rights. Along the way toward this goal, there are countless people who will do anything to deny those rights. More to the point, these people will lie about gays being a danger, about how society will crumble if there is gay marriage, they will further the myth that gays are bad for raising children.

Anything to paint the picture that gay rights are dangerous, even though more and more, people are waking up to the fact that the true toxicity is the mass effort by small-minded hateful people that vilify a class of people that don't do harm to the world, but actually have always added great value to it.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Really, you'd think some of these folks could come up with an argument that isn't straight out of faux news.

Can anyone give me a real reason why it matters if a few gay folks want to get married?

Seriously, is this such a big deal that a comic book blog has to turn into a gay marriage argument? Who gives a shit if two people of the same sex are in love and want to be married so they can obtain the same legal rights as everyone else?

How does this hurt anyone else?

All it really means is that I will definitely be the last one of my friends to get married. 😉

I guess the one good thing is several regular commentators have been exposed as close minded bigots.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Why is some asshole pontificating about gay marriage on a comic book blog? Moreover, why is the same asshole stating that there is something wrong with someone just because they prefer a partner of the same sex on a comic book blog?

Finally, why are right wing bullies such assholes that they can't even let it go when on a comic book blog?

Defiant1

I didn't create the legal perks for married couples under the law. I don't really care what a gay couple is missing out on. I'm not eligible for societal perks because I'm single. Why would I feel sad for a gay couple whining for special considerations I don't get?

If gay people are considered "married", why not brother and sister? It's not really a matter whether a line is drawn, it more a matter of where it is drawn. Since the laws were written with the union of a man and a woman, I think it's a little deceptive to try and circumvent the intent of the law by redefining the scope. I'd rather see the laws rewritten from scratch. Get rid of all the perks for being in a relationship and see who cares or clamors for the social status after that.

Anonymous

Anonymous

kgaard, I was the one making claims about his thinking based on his actions. (Or lack of them.) Cause and effect. It's a recognized scientific principle…maybe you've heard of it? And me repeating what you wrote was irony. Maybe you've heard of that as well?

Anonymous

Actually the Sun and Daily Mail are sister publications and quite a few English newspapers are routinely sued for libel. The Sun has often reported on the issue of gay adoption, but few U.K. residents regard it as a quality newspaper. Also, some employees of the publishers of the Daily Mail are being investigated in relation to how they obtained their stories, not in regard to the accuracy of them. Well done that man. (Jacob.) When you don't like the facts, cast doubt on those who report them. What was that you said about entering the world of grown ups?

kgaard, neither did he say that it WAS an issue for him. Maybe it is, but you don't know that either. However, even if it is, it's not enough of one for him to want to contribute when he has the perfect opportunity to state his case.

Yeah, (a) you were the one making claims about his thinking ("It clearly isn't the issue to him that it is to you."), and (b) I clearly acknowledged that I don't know either, so you repeating what I wrote as if I didn't know it is weird, and you should take this opportunity to stop digging.

Okay, so that quote comes from a 'Christian' website that is in turn quoting an article from the Daily Mail. For those of you who don't know, the Mail – often called the Daily Fail by UK residents – is a tabloid magazine currently under investigation by the UK's *conservative* government for lawbreaking and that is routinely sued for libel.

For contrast, please observe that the London Times – an internationally-respected conservative paper – did not report on this story. Nor did fellow tabloid The Sun.

A quick googling also reveals that the Mail has been implicated in several "gay panic" stories.

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

kgaard, neither did he say that it WAS an issue for him. Maybe it is, but you don't know that either. However, even if it is, it's not enough of one for him to want to contribute when he has the perfect opportunity to state his case.

Jeff Z

Anonymous

"So do you also believe that it should not be legal for sterile individuals or post-menopausal women to get married, since they are not able to procreate? What about couples who simply choose not to have children… should they be allowed to marry?"

[MikeAnon:] No, but considering that procreation is the general reason why governments condone marriage and grant benefits and privileges to married couples, government would have a rational basis for withdrawing such persons from eligibility to marry. That government doesn't choose to go so far into a person's fertility or state of mind is government's choice. However, it is easy enough for a judge to note that two men or two women, rather than a man and a woman, are standing before him/her asking for permission to marry, realize, "No babies coming from that!" and deny permission on those grounds.

With regard to the whole "subhuman" business: Saying that someone has something wrong with him/her does not in any way mean that person is subhuman. I have extreme nearsightedness. Does that make me subhuman? Or does it just mean that there's something wrong with my eyes? Do you have to convince yourself that there's nothing wrong with my eyes before you can accept my basic humanity? If so, then either everyone has 20/20 vision to you, or the world is replete with subhumans.

Moreover, nearsightedness is a condition that should never happen, and that the world would be better off without. If tomorrow everyone who was nearsighted were to wake up with 20/20 vision, the world would never miss nearsightedness — indeed, the whole world, myself included, would rejoice to see it pass into history. (Okay, the opticians would be upset at first, but they'd get over it.)

All I'm saying is that homosexuality is like nearsightedness: it is a disorder in need of a cure, not a variation on the norm deserving of glory and "pride" — (When was the last time you saw a nearsightedness pride parade? All those people bumping into things….) — and certainly not worthy of the affirmation given it through marriage, seeing how it lacks the fecundity of heterosexuality that brought marriage into existence in the first place. Marriage, after, all, is an affirmation of two natural realities that human beings did not create but merely recognized about themselves: man normatively exists as two distinct and complementary groups (males and females), and only the union of a member from each group can produce new human beings. Extending marriage to same-sex couples, then, robs marriage of all its underlying natural truth and turns all marriages into nothing more than government-invented civil unions. And, yes, when you rob marriage of all its natural meaning, you DO cause harm to the marriages of everyone else who, up to that point, understood their marriage to be something special and worthy of recognition due to its underlying natural realities. Granted, easy divorce and the social legitimization of extramarital sex have gone a long way toward demeaning marriage and reducing its importance in people's lives, but it's taken gay marriage to change the very institution itself into a meaningless abstraction having no natural underpinnings. I wonder how many people even recognize what has been lost with this turn of events, since it seems so many people consider marriage to be only a meaningless abstraction — only a "piece of paper" — anyway, so for them, with their already-reduced view of marriage, I suppose nothing has changed. [–MikeAnon]

Anonymous

Jacob, you are just as unaware of the details of why the courts decided in the gay couple's favour over the grandparents as I am. Therefore, as I have already pointed out, your opinion carries no more validity than you imply mine does.

I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. I'm even more surprised I have to repeat myself.

Anonymous

This is the story I was referring to. I got the details of the parents' deaths confused with a similar one.

Child Taken From Grandparents for Gay Adoption

The latest evidence I submit to you, dear reader, that the world is upside down is this topsy turvy tale from jolly ol' England.

Two grandparents just had their grandchildren whom they adored ripped away from them so the state could give the child to a homosexual couple to adopt. You see, we must remember that the highest good here is not the child's welfare but making a politically correct social point.

Says the Daily Mail:

Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents.

The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition.

The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old – at 46 and 59.

For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict.

They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.

The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.

When the grandfather protested, he was told: 'You can either accept it, and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.'

The man said last night: 'It breaks my heart to think that our grandchildren are being forced to grow up in an environment without a mother figure. We are not prejudiced, but I defy anyone to explain to us how this can be in their best interests.'

Social workers themselves have admitted that the little girl is 'more wary' of men than women.

One of the things that jumps out at me in this tale is that even though the grandfather is having his grandchildren torn away from him he still feels the need to assure everyone he's not prejudiced against gays. Dude, you've got a right to be pretty damn outraged. Two children are being taken away from you so some jerk with a social welfare degree can pronounce himself a hero for standing up for alternative lifestyles.

In a sane world, a movie would be made of this from the poor grandparent's perspective. In this mad mad mad world, a movie will be made about the young social worker standing up to the system. It'll probably get some awards.

Let's talk about rights. Two parents were killed in a car crash and one set of grandparents looked after the two children who had been left behind. Until, that is, a gay couple (not related to the children in any way) wanted to adopt them…so the court took the kids away from their grandparents and awarded custody to the gay couple.

What happened to the children's rights in that situation? What happened to the grandparents rights?

That's a true story by the way.

Link, please!

It's extremely revealing that the only person to so far identify himself as gay did not even want to read the discussion and has not contributed to it. It clearly isn't the issue to him that it is to you.

Uh, he said, quite clearly, that he didn't want to discuss it here, not that it wasn't an issue for him. Maybe it isn't, but you don't know that. And even if it isn't, one gay person doesn't speak for all of them, they're not fungible, you know.

"If ja is going to argue that gays should have the same right that hetros do, then the grandparents should have been allowed to bring up the children they were related to. As actual relatives, shouldn't they have that right?"

Not if the court deems them unable! If they're in a precarious financial situation, or ill, or for one of a million other reasons for which courts – who are, after all, charged with the well-being of the children in their charge, not the sensitive feelings of grown-ups – deny custody to relatives every day across the country. It really amazes me that I have to explain this to you.

Dickie Santorum

Anonymous

Anonymous

Jacob, as you don't actually know the facts of the case, your views carry even less weight than you imply mine do. Unless you know for a fact I'm wrong, that is.

If ja is going to argue that gays should have the same right that hetros do, then the grandparents should have been allowed to bring up the children they were related to. As actual relatives, shouldn't they have that right?

Anonymous

"Even some gays don't think that they should have the right to adopt, so hetros hardly have a monopoly on that stance."

You replied:

"And I've met black people who believe that a black man should never be president, because they can't handle it. So what?"

So what? They're entitled to their opinion, right or wrong…and to express that opinion without you being dismissive about it. And anyway, that is a 'false equivalency' for the following reason. These guys (if they exist and are not just an expedient invention of yours) are not claiming that blacks should not be allowed to be president…only that they should not want to be president. There's a difference.

The dissent between gays on the adoption issue is not based on the same premise as the blacks/presidency one.

Finally (because a man can only deal with so much deluded nonsense in one night):

"Yes, my sneaky techniques of stating the truth with common-sense reasoning. Oh, I have been found out. My arguments are so real, that they are more and more backed up by millions of people in this country who are standing up to hateful ridiculing like you, which is affecting positive change."

You haven't displayed one iota of common-sense reasoning or real argument in anything you've written. All you've done is project your own distorted interpretations onto the words of others and then argued against your own ignorance.

It's extremely revealing that the only person to so far identify himself as gay did not even want to read the discussion and has not contributed to it. It clearly isn't the issue to him that it is to you. How do you explain your unhealthy obsession with the subject? (Apart from trying to portray tourself as some kind of saint I mean.)

Anonymous

"Learn your facts first. What other "legally recognized manner" would that be? Name it explicitly – or you don't know what you're talking about"

Make a will, or have everything in joint names. Simple as that. If two people love one another like you say, then surely they'd sort that out before it ever became an issue. Why award them the same status as married couples simply so that they can benefit financially? Men and women get married, not men and men or women and women. Simple as that…live with it.

Right, back to ja's nonsense.

All your so-called reasoning is based on presumption and arrogance. MikeAnon said nothing about homosexuals being subhuman as I have already pointed out. You have merely transposed your own biased interpretation onto his words the better to villify him."

Ah, but the speaker's whole attitude – along with the words Ole highlighted – speak volumes, and clearly demonstrates what I've been talking about."

It's only clear to you because you want to see it that way. If I say I want to eradicate all disease and illness from the face of the planet, that does not mean that I want to eradicate all those currently suffering from illness and disease from the face of the planet. There's a difference, and anyone who was truly reasonable would see that. (And that is only an example and not necessarily intended to suggest that homosexuality is an illness or disease, although I'm sure you'll try and project that meaning onto it.)

"I use that term accurately to reflect how you were wrong. Someone not being able to drink until they're 21 isn't the same thing as denying gays their civil rights."

When you distort the intent of my words and say it like that, it sounds as if you have a point…but only because you missed or ignored mine. I was demonstrating that not all groups of people have the same rights at the same time. They're dependent on different factors: age, status, location, country of origin, etc. Just because one group of people of one particular status do not have the same rights as another does not make that situation wrong per se. Most rights are arbitrary to some degree or other anyway. Not all hetrosexual people are automatically entitled to adopt, so why should gay people be? Just because straight people are? The child's rights should come first, and that being the case, every child should be entitled (circumstances permitting) to be raised by a father AND mother, even if it's only adoptive ones.

"It is true for a great deal of people. I never said it applied to everyone. You're the one falsely characterizing what I wrote. My clarifying this point wasn't a back-pedal at all."

Jeff Z said "the ones who protest the loudest…" He did not qualify it by saying "Some of the ones…",so he obviously meant all. You said "SO TRUE.", thereby agreeing with his assessment. Your later 'clarification' was a back-pedal.

I said:

"You talk about ignorant and hateful people. I don't see anyone calling for gays to be locked up, beaten up, spit upon, or exterminated."

You replied:

"I refer you to Ole's highlighted passages above, which I believe to be very accurately presented."

In other words you preferred to ignore what I clearly said, and attach someone else's projected meaning onto my words. That's what's known as erecting a straw man. Not clever, not reasonable, not worthy. You can't deal with what people actually say, so you have to make it mean something else to give you an excuse to attack it.

Marcus Bachmann

Amousey-non

"What happened to the children's rights in that situation? What happened to the grandparents rights?"

It's amusing that the reflexive assumption is that the children weren't being taken into account, because GAYS. What a perfect example of weak, cringing bigotry. What a masterpiece painting in the medium of pure human failure.

Anony-Mouse

Anonymous

ja, never have I seen such a self-righteous tyrant try to bully people who do not share his views, or distort to such an extent what people are saying in order to attack a figment of his imagination.

Anyone who has a different opinion to you is full of evil, ignorance, malevolence, hatred, malice, vitriol, hostility, and a whole host of other nasty traits. You on the other hand are the very model of kindness, common-sense, reason, honesty, compassion, and obviously view yourself as the male equivalent of Mother Teresa.

Talk about deluded.

The gay agenda is not an issue for me. I have no real interest in it and it has no actual relevance to me. I am probably indifferent to it in the main, except when they get militant and try and bully society into their way of thinking.

So, all your projected fantasies of me running dirty movies of what they get up to in my head is total nonsense because I never give a second thought to what people do to one another in their own homes in private. However, that doesn't fit in with the image you've tried to create of so-called homophobic boogie-men who are intent of robbing a certain class of people of their 'rights'.

Let's talk about rights. Two parents were killed in a car crash and one set of grandparents looked after the two children who had been left behind. Until, that is, a gay couple (not related to the children in any way) wanted to adopt them…so the court took the kids away from their grandparents and awarded custody to the gay couple.

What happened to the children's rights in that situation? What happened to the grandparents rights?

That's a true story by the way. In nothing more than a shameless act of social manipulation, two kids were taken from their loving grandparents and given to two gay men merely to curry favour with the gay lobby and win a few votes for someone.

I merely joined this conversation to point out that for anyone to be insulted or attacked for not subscribing to the gay cause was just as bad (in principle if not degree) as people being insulted or attacked for being gay. In other words, neither was justified. A very moderate view I'd humbly suggest. But no. According to you. anyone of that opinion is akin to the Anti-Christ.

What utter garbage. Hang around. I'll be back to address your other deluded, self-righteous rantings after I grab a quick coffee and a stogie.

Jeff Z

Anonymous

ja

Rob,

For someone who criticizes everyone for their non-comics posts, you sure have jumped in to join the party. Welcome! =)

It takes "more courage and personal integrity for someone to publicly argue the anti gay marriage position"? Considering what precisely these people were saying, "courage" and "integrity" wouldn't be the words to describe them.

Cowardly. Hateful and ridiculing. Generally denigrating people who are not like them, while stating that they shouldn't exist. But you know this, having read the thread, I'm sure.

The "diversity of ideas" is just a technicality, but really doesn't apply here in a positive way. Not when people outright ridicule someone for their sexuality, and suggest that certain people (even though they'll say they were only talking about 'the act' and not the person) shouldn't exist because of their sexuality, and talk in denigrating ways about denying equal rights to people they don't like only because of their sexuality.

It was more than several people spewing these anti-not-their-kind-of-sexuality viewpoints, not just one. There wasn't any kind of a 'pile on'. It was a vigorous back and forth.

Their arbitrary views certainly were heartfelt, though. So, please respect them if you wish. But to do so, you'd be taking the side of people who want to oppress others' equal rights. That's not a good thing.

Rob, "diversity" means that people of different backgrounds can work together for a common goal, not shrugging and going along with the guy who thinks people are subhuman because of the color of their skin or the preferred destination of their genitals. "Tolerance" means overlooking ultimately unimportant differences, not making excuses for the moral corrosion of others.

It's time to quit making excuses, Rob. The time for courage is now. Will you seize it?

Anonymous

Rob, there's a meaningful difference between a person's right to have an opinion and the content of that opinion. Some opinions are ethically dubious or grounded in an uncertain grasp of facts or reality or just plain dumb. I can respect someone's right to think that black people are shiftless or Jews are avaricious and still have contempt for the content of the opinion.

When you have a situation that's a zero-sum game, such as: gays will able to marry, or gays will not be able to marry, it's not very useful to say, well, let's just respect each other's opinion on this one. If I want to allow gay marriage and MikeAnon doesn't, in practical terms, one of us is going to get what we want and one of us isn't, opinions be damned.

Anonymous

Jacob, I would say it takes more courage and persnal integrity for someone to publicaly argue (or at least on this message board) the anti gay marriage position. dont you think, since it's in the minority here and the person is being piled on? How is it courageous to spout what everyone else here is? Not that I agree with him, but it's hardly cowardly, or shows a lack of integrity.

You speak of diversity (comics being one of the least diverse mediums in terms of race, sexuality lol but ok), but have no respect for diverse viewpoints. The diversity of ideas.

Getting along despite our differences. Respect ofr other people's opinions that are heartfelt. Even if i disagree.

Anonymous

Congressional/Senate approval isn't end all and be all though. Iut's not a national vote.

Because people "hate" congress

But when you poll them about their individual congressman/Senator, they are much more likely to say "oh no, him I like, it's the other ones who are bums."

Throw in redistricting for the house, and incumbency advantage and it is harder for an incumbent to lose.

Then there are several retirements that hurt the democrats more than the republicans.

So national approval ratings for congress dont really matter. I dont get to vote on Nevada's senator even if they suck. I only get to vote for mine. I dont get to vote for your congressman, only mine. and my gu, just like everyone's guy, makes sure they are as popular as possible in their district. Not to mention allthe senators are not even up.

Having said all that, Im not sure why Im being called a tea partier for presenting the prevailing wisdom right now. You are a little rude.

"A total of 33 seats will be up for grabs in the 2012 election, 23 of which are held by Democrats. Republicans will have open opportunities in six of those 23 states where the Democratic incumbent is retiring. Only two Republicans are retiring, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona, although the GOP will likely hold on to those traditionally red-state seats."http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-control-senate-top-races-watch/story?id=14374992

Clearly, at the very least, it's more complicated than you make it which is "congress unpopular so they lose". In 2010, it wasnt congress unpopularity, it the was the president's that caused the flip.

Anonymous

Jeff Z

Voters overturned Congress in 2006 and 2010 when approval numbers were higher than they are now. I expect the tea partiers will be sent packing with the exception of the really backwards districts- you know , the ones where they're still resentful of civil rights legislation.

Anonymous

Jeff Z,

Keep in mind that while this is historically the most unpopular Congress, Congress always polls poorly. This is because people are being asked to rate all of Congress, which includes a few people they voted for, and hundreds of people they didn't, which results in a lot of "I can't believe the idiots in State I Don't Live In voted for Jerk I Can't Stand!" People generally tend to like their representatives (if they voted for them, and by definition that means a lot of people like them). As I noted above, the math favors the GOP in the Senate this year, although it's still possible for the Democrats to retain their advantage.

Anonymous

Well, he's probably correct. The Republicans are favorites (not locks, but favorites) to gain control of the Senate, see Nate Silver's piece here. (Note that the post is from last December, so the math may have changed some, but probably not significantly.)

On the other hand, writing three posts responding to a conversation then another one complaining about the existence of the conversation seems rather like wanting to eat one's cake and have it, too.

Jim and a commenter discussed the difference between being naive and innocent.

Well, here's my personal bit of naivete – I used to think people who immersed themselves in superhero stories since a young age might have picked up at least SOME of the worthwhile and salutary values of those stories: values like personal integrity, courage, diversity, teamwork, and above all a deep reverence for reason.

Instead I see grown men waving around their deep personal cowardice about where penises go, their cringing fear about being hit on by a dude (OH NO! HOW HORRIBLE!) and hiding behind illogic and appeals to tradition.

It's embarrassing. It's shameful. Some people didn't learn a damn thing from their comics.

Anonymous

But like the Republican Party after George W. Bush, your power and influence is fading.***Except they won in the midterm elections and have the house. Even if they don't take the presidency, they are likely to control the senate as well after the election

Anonymous

As far as the propagation of the species – I think there are far too many people on this earth already, so I have no problem with curbing birth rates in this way***I always wonder why people who feel this way don't practice what they preach and do the samarai(sp) thing,

ja

Anonymous

Learn your facts first. What other "legally recognized manner" would that be? Name it explicitly – or you don't know what you're talking about

If they are not legally recognized as next of kin – then the family is. It is the perfect opportunity for an vindictive family to take advantage of the situation – and it is a scenario that has been played out a lot in this world. Cases where the family will not even allow them in the hospital room – won't even allow visitation. Imagine what that must be like – I know, you can't.

ja

You may think it doesn't constitute vitriol, but it does. Again I refer you to the people who are bullied, denied their civil rights, and those who are so ridiculed that it drives them to suicide.

You know full well your statements aren't meant to be "mildly humorous". You obviously enjoy presenting your obfuscation of others' dignity and rights. You're proud of it.

You have great power with your hateful words, because so many people echo your sentiments. But like the Republican Party after George W. Bush, your power and influence is fading. People see you more and more for the cruel and indifferent voice that you actually have. Soon you will end up like those who denied civil rights to blacks, or The Vote to women.

Completely irrelevant.

This is why everyone needs to stand up to your kind of hostility and malevolence, until you end up in the dustbin of history, like Jeff Z suggested.

ja

Anonymous said: "Oh, and as for 'the dirty little movies going on in my head that gets (me) all worked up'…I think you'll find that's another example of you casting aspersions on someone's sexuality,,,something you claimed you never did. I've now shown you two examples of something you denied."

It wasn't an aspersion on your sexuality. I believe you're a straight man. It was an aspersion on your hateful obsession, as if when you talk about gays, it's incredibly easy for me to picture you not being able to get the image of guys having sex with each other out of your head. That's funny to me, because gays are not harming you or society one bit. Your own angry obsessions are.

"It's also an example of you projecting your own fantasies onto someone else, but we're wise to your little techniques to discredit your opponents by now. It's all you've got in the absence of any real argument."

Yes, my sneaky techniques of stating the truth with common-sense reasoning. Oh, I have been found out. My arguments are so real, that they are more and more backed up by millions of people in this country who are standing up to hateful ridiculing like you, which is affecting positive change.

As for my own fantasies… there you go again with your ridicule. It doesn't matter that I'm not what you suggest, but there you are, thinking that accusing me of being so somehow justifies you being a maliciously derisive person.

I heard someone saying this yesterday. Sums up things pretty well:

To be clear, here are the values I stand for: honesty, equality, kindness, compassion, treating people the way you want to be treated, and helping those in need.

ja

Anonymous said: "Ole, saying that someone has something wrong with them in relation to their behaviour is an entirely different thing to calling them 'subhuman'."

You may claim that, but the experience of those who are denigrated by hateful people in various forms, denied rights, etc… doesn't make it true. Ole made his point very clearly.

"MikeAnon did not refer to anyone as being subhuman, and you trying to impose that definition on his words is how YOU may see things, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the speaker."

Ah, but the speaker's whole attitude – along with the words Ole highlighted – speak volumes, and clearly demonstrates what I've been talking about.

"You can go now, you have proved yourself unworthy of further discussion."

Only if things worked for you that way in real life. =D

"When you're trying to make your point, everything seems to be connected, but when you can't refute your opponent's view it becomes convenient for you attempt to dismiss it by resorting to the one size fits all phrase 'false equivalency'."

I use that term accurately to reflect how you were wrong. Someone not being able to drink until they're 21 isn't the same thing as denying gays their civil rights.

But denying marriage – an institution that has been abused & pissed upon by heterosexuals throughout time – to gays is part of denying them their civil rights, and that is what is changing in this country.

""Never did I cast any aspersions on anyone's sexuality. Show me where I have, and not something that you've wildly interpreted. I never back-pedaled on anything. I've been very consistent."

Okay ja, I'll show you. The following is from one of your comments:

'Jeff Z said: "The ones who protest the loudest are the ones who wind up dragged out of the closet"

SO TRUE.'"

It is true for a great deal of people. I never said it applied to everyone. You're the one falsely characterizing what I wrote. My clarifying this point wasn't a back-pedal at all.

"Wrong. The only things you 'backed up' your points with were the 'false equivalents' of opinion and distortion."

I don't believe I've distorted anything. I've observed how people have been ridiculed and made to feel as if they're subhuman for being gay. People sadly commit suicide because they feel they've been bullied into a corner, and they can't see any other way out. It is my observation that this bullying causes harm to people. This is real, not hyperbole.

Maybe you can't see that because you're too busy with ridiculing others for being what you hate.

"You talk about ignorant and hateful people. I don't see anyone calling for gays to be locked up, beaten up, spit upon, or exterminated."

I refer you to Ole's highlighted passages above, which I believe to be very accurately presented.

"But in your mind it's 'as good as' if someone doesn't think that homosexuals should have the 'right' to adopt, for example."

They absolutely should have the right to adopt. Responsible loving parents are responsible loving parents, no matter their sexuality.

"Even some gays don't think that they should have the right to adopt, so hetros hardly have a monopoly on that stance."

And I've met black people who believe that a black man should never be president, because they can't handle it. So what?

Anonymous

In that scenario, other anonymous, there are ways to to address those issues. If two unmarried people have spent their lives together, they should have arranged to provide for one another in a legally recognised manner long before death claims one of them.

Anonymous

Couple things in response to Defiant

One of the really big issues with gay marriage is important legal rights – particularly end-of-life stuff. There have been many instances of a gay partner, who has spent his/her entire life with his/her partner, being utterly locked out of an end-of-life situation by the family. It is soul-shattering, and legal marriage is a remedy of this

As far as the propagation of the species – I think there are far too many people on this earth already, so I have no problem with curbing birth rates in this way (see Twain's The Lowest Animal for further thoughts)

Anonymous

Before anyone is tempted to categorise a group of people, try running your words through "the jew test": Exchange the name of the group you're writing about (e.g. gay people) with "jew(s)" (or e.g. "blacks") and see what it looks/sounds like.

Anonymous

Ole, saying that someone has something wrong with them in relation to their behaviour is an entirely different thing to calling them 'subhuman'. You have spectaculary failed to make your case, but have demonstrated how readily you are prepared to distort what people actually said.

MikeAnon did not refer to anyone as being subhuman, and you trying to impose that definition on his words is how YOU may see things, but it doesn't necessarily reflect the views of the speaker.

You can go now, you have proved yourself unworthy of further discussion.

ja, let me address this use of what you clearly imagine are some kind of magic words with the power to invalidate any point you can't effectively deal with…'false equivalency'. You might as well yell 'abracadabra' into the air for all the good it will do you.

When you're trying to make your point, everything seems to be connected, but when you can't refute your opponent's view it becomes convenient for you attempt to dismiss it by resorting to the one size fits all phrase 'false equivalency'.

Dear me, you really haven't got a case, have you?

Ja said:

"Never did I cast any aspersions on anyone's sexuality. Show me where I have, and not something that you've wildly interpreted. I never back-pedaled on anything. I've been very consistent."

Okay ja, I'll show you. The following is from one of your comments:

'Jeff Z said: "The ones who protest the loudest are the ones who wind up dragged out of the closet"

SO TRUE.'

There it is in black and white fella. Live with it.

The back pedal? Here you go:

"Though it is true that some people who protest the loudest are closeted gays, it's by no means all, or even most."

So you go from "So true" in agreeing that the most vocal critics are all repressed homosexuals, to saying that not all of them are. You conceded my point, which makes that a 'back-pedal on your earlier stance.

Wrong. The only things you 'backed up' your points with were the 'false equivalents' of opinion and distortion.

You talk about ignorant and hateful people. I don't see anyone calling for gays to be locked up, beaten up, spit upon, or exterminated. But in your mind it's 'as good as' if someone doesn't think that homosexuals should have the 'right' to adopt, for example. Even some gays don't think that they should have the right to adopt, so hetros hardly have a monopoly on that stance.

Oh, and as for 'the dirty little movies going on in my head that gets (me) all worked up'…I think you'll find that's another example of you casting aspersions on someone's sexuality,,,something you claimed you never did. I've now shown you two examples of something you denied.

It's also an example of you projecting your own fantasies onto someone else, but we're wise to your little techniques to discredit your opponents by now. It's all you've got in the absence of any real argument.

ja

To be fair, the same could be said of me, as I wish not to show my name.

However, I believe that no matter who is anonymous, nor *how* anonymous one is (I have TWO letters in MY name!:]), one's words and ideas should be the thing that is judged.

I blather on about nonsense quite a bit at times, but I believe I've been damned well on point this last day and a half. I think my words and reasoning (along with yours, Ole's, czeskleba's, JayJay's, kgaard's, DonAnon's, Brian Foss's, and at least one Anonymous's) are wiser than, stronger than, and resonate much more than the narrow-minded hateful people who fling their disdain around.

Good ideals that serve people will always trump those that try to harm others.

Jeff Z

Anonymous will inevitably wind up in the same dustbin as those who threw things at black children as they attempted to enter schools in the South. He knows that, which is why he 's too cowardly to share his name.

ja

ja

Anonymous said: "Now, I would advise all gay men to go along to their nearest Indian restaurant and partake of a couple of extra-large dishes of triple-strength chicken vindaloo. Not only will this allow them to enjoy some good food in pleasant surroundings and to chill out a bit…it'll also teach them what their ass is for."

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PROVING MY POINT!

THAT is the attitude that I'm talking about. You have no cogent argument against allowing gays their civil rights, so you resort to the kind of hateful, insulting vitriol that so many bigoted people fall back upon.

Ridicule.

Your insults are bad enough, but it's worse when it's part of a chorus, and worse still when part of its own culture of intolerance, affecting people toward treating others badly because of their differences.

Good thing that crap is being whittled away as time goes on.

Forget the fact that you're going to find out one day that some relatives (close ones?) are gay, and there you'll be, ridiculing them, trying to ostracize them out of your family, as you seem to be trying to do with gays in general.

You are a great example of my previous KKK analogy. The poisonous words you spew is your white pointy robe.

ja

Anonymous said: "What you refuse to acknowledge is that I have gone to great pains to make clear that I am not and never have advocated denying people their rights."

Again, I am saying that the degrading attitudes contribute to the actions of those who deny people their rights. It's all connected.

"But you are not the arbiter of what these rights are any more than I am."

Not me, but me and the millions of others who are speaking up, and the legislators and judges who clarify these rights are.

"I haven't seen anyone classifying gays as 'subhuman' anywhere on this page – only people not agreeing with their BEHAVIOUR."

The word 'subhuman' wasn't used specifically, but again, I'm talking about the hateful things that have been said, which amount to the same thing.

"There's a distinction between people and their actions."

By 'actions' you mean sex. Sex is irrelevant (except to you and the little dirty movies going on constantly in your head that gets you all worked up), and is not the point here. We're talking about people's attitudes that translate into the denial of people's rights.

"I'm talking about being made to feel that I'm somehow out of step with humanity, or am some unfeeling nazi, because I refuse to be bullied into regarding such behaviour as on a par with relationships between men and women."

You are out of step with the progression of society, to be sure. How you regard someone's sexuality doesn't matter.

"You were the first to cast aspersions on the sexuality of all those who don't hold your point of view, although you back-pedalled slightly when I pointed out how absurd your position was."

Never did I cast any aspersions on anyone's sexuality. Show me where I have, and not something that you've wildly interpreted. I never back-pedaled on anything. I've been very consistent.

"In some cases, the law of the land awards different rights to people on the basis of whether they're married or single, over or under the age of 21, etc."

False equivalency. Not what we were talking about.

"You can try and distort the facts as much as you want to, but your over-simplification of anyone who doesn't agree with gay culture as 'bad' and those who support it as 'good' reveals just how impoverished is the nature of your argument."

Never distorted anything. Always backed my points up with evidence and reasoning. I'll say again: I do not care what anyone's opinion on gay 'culture' is. I'm talking about attitudes and their consequences by people who are ignorant and hateful.

"I haven't seen anyone classifying gays as 'subhuman' anywhere on this page – only people not agreeing with their BEHAVIOUR. There's a distinction between people and their actions."

MikeAnon said (my emphasis):

"(…) it really offends me that when it comes to gay marriage the burden of "choice" is always placed on the people who have nothing wrong with them, whereas the people who do have something wrong with them are cast as having no "choice" at all.

I first saw two guys kiss when I was eight years old. It made me sick. It made me feel like I had witnessed something that simply should not ever happen. (…) Homosexuality ISN'T supposed to happen. So why should we teach our children, who can recognize this fact on sight, that THEY need to change their natural feelings, rather than advise homosexuals that THEY need to control their natural feelings so as not to offend the normal people around them?

I know this is not going to be a popular post, but it needs to be said, especially in light of what's happened in California today: Something that clearly ought not to exist — that the world unquestionably would be better off without — has been put, probably without remedy, on the same plane as that which clearly needs to exist for the continuation of the species. If this doesn't disturb you to your core, I honestly don't know why."

Jeff Z

Anonymous

ja said…

"I show wonderful tolerance toward those people who don't happen to see things 'my' (and most of mainstream society's) way. I am insulting of those people when their views go beyond the 'I don't agree', into the 'We should deny people their rights'.

It's a clear distinction, even though you refuse to acknowledge it."

What you refuse to acknowledge is that I have gone to great pains to make clear that I am not and never have advocated denying people their rights. But you are not the arbiter of what these rights are any more than I am.

ja said…

"My thinking is just fine, thank you. You can try to distract the subject at hand all you wish by trying to characterize me as being mean to those who are okay with classifying gays as subhuman just for being who they are, but it won't work."

I haven't seen anyone classifying gays as 'subhuman' anywhere on this page – only people not agreeing with their BEHAVIOUR. There's a distinction between people and their actions.

ja said…

"I'm sorry you feel that coerced by people fighting for their rights. You don't have to think of them as 'normal'. Your resistance toward their quest to be treated as equal citizens in a country that was founded upon individual freedoms makes you less and less normal as time goes on."

'Fighting for their rights'? No, that's NOT what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being made to feel that I'm somehow out of step with humanity, or am some unfeeling nazi, because I refuse to be bullied into regarding such behaviour as on a par with relationships between men and women. However, I don't go on marches, sign petitions, or call for leglisation to enforce my point of view…regardless of how many times you seek to characterise me as someone who is trying to 'deny anybody their rights' as you rather simplistically put it.

ja said…

"There you go again, making about someone's sexuality. It's about their rights as human beings, and their 'need' to be legally and fully appointed the same rights and privileges as everyone else."

You were the first to cast aspersions on the sexuality of all those who don't hold your point of view, although you back-pedalled slightly when I pointed out how absurd your position was. Don't seem to like it when people play you at your own game, do you?

And you'll find that NOT all people have the same rights and privileges as everyone else. In some cases, the law of the land awards different rights to people on the basis of whether they're married or single, over or under the age of 21, etc.

You can try and distort the facts as much as you want to, but your over-simplification of anyone who doesn't agree with gay culture as 'bad' and those who support it as 'good' reveals just how impoverished is the nature of your argument.

Now, I would advise all gay men to go along to their nearest Indian restaurant and partake of a couple of extra-large dishes of triple-strength chicken vindaloo. Not only will this allow them to enjoy some good food in pleasant surroundings and to chill out a bit…it'll also teach them what their ass is for.

I'm not going to debate any further. A man and a woman is a man and a woman. We disagree at a fundamental level. I suspect that if married people had their special rights taken away, no one would care what their relationship was called. I would prefer that be done.

I'm not goingto get angry if the law changes, I just refuse to agree with it.

I also refuse to agree with a justice system that uses speeding tickets to fund policing activities. Money and justice should not be tied together to determine whether a policeman writes a ticket or not. Too much incentive to write tickets or pass laws for the sake of revenue.

There are a lot of things I disagree with others about. That's why we vote. It doesn't make you OR me right.

Defiant1 said: For me, the line gets drawn at a stage that is natural for bonding and procreation in our species. So yes, I do have a problem with gay marriage being legalized.************************So do you also believe that it should not be legal for sterile individuals or post-menopausal women to get married, since they are not able to procreate? What about couples who simply choose not to have children… should they be allowed to marry?

Defiant1 said: If two people really love each other and share a relationship, the only thing legalized marriage offers are the free tax perks and shared insurance plans.*********************

ja

Defiant1,

I don't believe in the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good.

But yes, I am a mass murderer of seedless grape vine babies. Me and several billion other people on the planet. Doesn't make me perverted. It makes me appreciative of delicious green balls of goodness that goes very well with my salad.

ja

Anonymous said: "Hateful people and hateful views? You're the one who is insulting those of a different opinion to your own. How about showing a bit of tolerance to those who don't happen to see things your way?"

I show wonderful tolerance toward those people who don't happen to see things 'my' (and most of mainstream society's) way. I am insulting of those people when their views go beyond the 'I don't agree', into the 'We should deny people their rights'.

It's a clear distinction, even though you refuse to acknowledge it.

"And it's not your phrasing that's imperfect…it's your thinking."

My thinking is just fine, thank you. You can try to distract the subject at hand all you wish by trying to characterize me as being mean to those who are okay with classifying gays as subhuman just for being who they are, but it won't work.

"However, I resent the bullying nature of their tactics to coerce everyone into accepting their behaviour as 'normal', and their suggestion that those who don't see things from their point of view are unreasoning bigots or narrow-minded fascists."

I'm sorry you feel that coerced by people fighting for their rights. You don't have to think of them as 'normal'. Your resistance toward their quest to be treated as equal citizens in a country that was founded upon individual freedoms makes you less and less normal as time goes on.

"And just because YOU may have gay sympathies or leanings doesn't mean that everyone else needs to have them too."

There you go again, making about someone's sexuality. It's about their rights as human beings, and their 'need' to be legally and fully appointed the same rights and privileges as everyone else.

As for your claim that I'm showing support for hateful views, what utter garbage. I don't believe that homosexuals should be persecuted, imprisoned, spit upon, assaulted, or anything of that nature. What consenting adults get up to in privacy is none of my business or concern.

However, I resent the bullying nature of their tactics to coerce everyone into accepting their behaviour as 'normal', and their suggestion that those who don't see things from their point of view are unreasoning bigots or narrow-minded fascists.

And just because YOU may have gay sympathies or leanings doesn't mean that everyone else needs to have them too.

When my grandmother was approximately age 84, my sister explained to her what a homosexual was and how they had sex with one another. My grandmother burst out laughing, did a classic slap to the knee, and said "They march down the street and they are proud of that?" I think her reaction sums up my own attitude.

I don't have a problem with two people loving each other. It's a chemical reaction in our bodies which are chemical machines. Love and bonding are tied to the chemical Oxytocin. Looking at a puppy or a baby, hearing a baby's cry all release this chemical in the brain. Oxytocin is associated with pair bonding and trust between two people.

I do not feel gay marriage should be legalized. Simply loving someone is not a reason to socially accept gay marriage and call it the same as a heterosexual marriage.

At some point, the love and the sex need to be separated. You can love your dog, does that constitute grounds for a marriage? Of course not. Andrew Dice Clay made references to having sex with meatloaf and fur coats in his comedy routine. Is that grounds for a marriage? Of course not. So where does the line get drawn?

For me, the line gets drawn at a stage that is natural for bonding and procreation in our species. So yes, I do have a problem with gay marriage being legalized. By the same token, I have a problem with scientists creating seedless (I would say sterile) grapes. My problem is that it's against the natural order of things that allow the species to continue. It was also highly prevalent just before the fall of the Roman Empire. Og vourse I', sure this offends people, but consider that I'm also against married people being taxed differently whether it be strait or gay.

If two people really love each other and share a relationship, the only thing legalized marriage offers are the free tax perks and shared insurance plans. I've never been married and I don't care if I ever get married. The one thing I do find priceless beyond anything is the ability to be with someone I love with all my heart. Yes, I'm addicted to oxytocin just like everyone else. I already have someone that feeds my brain the chemical I need. I'm not asking the rest of society to pay a share of my taxes for me. I'm not asking for heath care recipients to pay slightly higher premiums so I can get a break on my healthcare costs. I don't really have pity or concern for gay couples or anyone that needs validation to accept what they've already accepted in their heart. The more someone thinks they need validation, the less likely I am to offer it. When I hold a door open for someone, and they reply thank you. I respond "I know." I feel that people need to be able to self-validate their actions and choices without relying on public opinion.

In dolphins and rats, the occurrence of homosexuality has been tied to overcrowding. The more overcrowded they are in an area, the increased likelihood of same sex mating. I classify homosexuality as a subset of hedonism. I feel the the current "political correctness" associated with the topic of gay marriage is the byproduct of movies and television promoting these lifestyles. I typically just don't watch them when I feel they are pushing an agenda.

For my critics, I present this rather sarcastic piece of original art in my collection which is drawn by Ivan Brunetti. Any complaints about my opinions are deemed just as absurd as the response in this piece of art. http://twitpic.com/48ps5n

If two people are gay and love each other, I'm happy for you. Oxytocin is a rewarding high.

Jeff Z

While the reactionaries try to turn back the clock on birth control and other gains of the previous century, progress marches on. Gays are marrying and there's nothing narrow minds can do about it. A very good thing.

ja

Anonymous said: "It's clear what's going on. Buying into the myth that only closet homosexuals are not accepting of gay culture, they think that by appearing to support the 'gay cause' and condemning its critics, no one will ever suspect them of harbouring gay thoughts themselves. Talk about a smoke screen?"

Nope. Not what we're talking about, no matter what kind of bullshit 'logic' you try to come up with.

Though it is true that some people who protest the loudest are closeted gays, it's by no means all, or even most. Most of those people who protest are simply those who don't like change, or who were raised believing that gays are bad, or simply that they are bigots.

I apply the word 'bigot' not to those people who are uncomfortable with gays' sexual activity. I apply 'bigot' to those people who speak out in such a way that fuels the underlining attitude that denies the civil rights of people who are different from them.

Anonymous

Going by the same inverted logic exhibited by some on this page, those who shout the loudest about those who find gay culture unacceptable (even if they don't believe in aggression towards homosexuals or that the state should legislate against their private behaviour) must therefore be repressed homophobes, desperately fighting to supress their natural instincts to condemn homosexuals. You're secret is out…we're on to you.

It's interesting that those who bleat on about tolerance and understanding on this page are also the first to indulge in insults and casting aspersions against those of a different viewpoint.

It's clear what's going on. Buying into the myth that only closet homosexuals are not accepting of gay culture, they think that by appearing to support the 'gay cause' and condemning its critics, no one will ever suspect them of harbouring gay thoughts themselves. Talk about a smoke screen?

ja

"[MikeAnon:] THANK you. Whether or not you agree with anything I've had to say, it's comforting to know that there are other people out there who aren't comfortable with seeing raging rivers of vitriol directed at *anyone* simply because of their different beliefs. [–MikeAnon]"

Hateful, bigoted beliefs. They are, by definition, "different beliefs" of those people who aren't hateful or bigoted.

ja

Hey, you're the idiot who threw the grenade in the first place. Deal with your hatred and bigotry being exposed for the accurate representation of you that it is.

"[MikeAnon:] (Sigh)…I did not say, "Gay people are evil." I said, "There is something wrong with gay people." Namely, they are gay. This is not making a moral judgment about the quality of someone's soul. This is merely a statement of biological fact. There is a way human sexuality is supposed to work. Gay ain't it. [–MikeAnon]"

Oh really, Professor? Human sexuality is supposed to work the way it has ever since man was created: some are straight, some are gay, some are bisexual. SO WHAT? NONE of these variations have EVER affected your life. Your hatred and disgust with people who are different than you is what affects your life.

Jeff Z said: "The ones who protest the loudest are the ones who wind up dragged out of the closet"

SO TRUE.

"[MikeAnon:] And just because something is natural, that doesn't make it a good and right thing. In every species of the animal kingdom, things go wrong — *naturally* wrong.[–MikeAnon]"

So you *ARE* the arbiter of what is right and wrong with the world! I've always wanted to meet the perfect person. I just never expected him to be in the form of a bigoted asshole.

YOU ARE SO FULL OF SHIT. I love it that you keep pontificating, as if your value judgment on gays sounds intellectual, when it's just nothing but fearful pomposity gone amok.

"[MikeAnon:] So you're saying that if we ever did get back down to an extinction-level threshold, it *would* be okay to stop homosexuals from "being themselves?" See, *that* is the kind of "logic" that actually makes no sense — no different, really, from the kind of logic that says, "If it's natural, then it's okay," because what you're implying is, "If it were *not* natural, then it would *not* be okay." Homosexual behavior is either right or wrong. Origins and conditions don't matter. [–MikeAnon]"

HAHAHAHAHAHAH! WE'RE NOT AT AN EXTINCTION-LEVEL THRESHOLD, YOU Y2K DUMBASS! HAHAHAHAHAH*cough*cough*HAHAHAHAHAHA!

MikeAnon, you are so wrong about your value judgments, and you know it. I'm so sorry for you that the world has passed you by.

Anonymous

"He came to the conclusion that one's physical conditions – one's race, gender, size, weight, sexual orientation, physical ability and creed – didn't really matter. The true person was the consciousness within the body – the soul, for those spiritually inclined, or the electro-chemical impulses which make up consciousness, for those of a more scientific bent. It is people's souls that fall in love with each other and want to share their lives with each other. Their bodies come along for the ride and are merely one of the many tools used to express that love.

[MikeAnon:] I'm glad you brought this up because it illustrates very well one of the key differences between those who are on the pro and con sides of the argument. The pro side tends to believe, "Bodies don't matter, just souls; people are basically individuals; gender is no more important an attribute than skin color." The con side, on the other hand, subscribes more to the position, "People consist of both souls and bodies, so both matter; people are basically men and women, with roles and properties appropriate to each; gender is an essential and important facet of human social existence, especially since it takes a person from each gender to make new human life." So it seems to me that when you abandon the notion of human identity properly belonging to both soul and body and begin ascribing human identity to the soul alone, that's when there comes a corresponding jump in attitude toward gender-based issues. [–MikeAnon]

Jeff Z

Anonymous

"If someone is going to argue that homosexuals feel the way they do because they're born that way and that homosexuality is therefore 'natural', then one could surely argue that those who feel revolted by such behaviour were born that way and that their revulsion is likewise natural. Therefore, any insulting description of the latter group's expression of their natural state as being ignorant and hateful, etc., surely qualifies as the same kind of bile-filled intolerance that the former group ascribes to their opponents."

[MikeAnon:] THANK you. Whether or not you agree with anything I've had to say, it's comforting to know that there are other people out there who aren't comfortable with seeing raging rivers of vitriol directed at *anyone* simply because of their different beliefs. [–MikeAnon]

Anonymous

"…8 year old boys think girls have cooties. Any kind of kissing makes most of them sick. lol."

[MikeAnon:] Exactly! I was one of those boys myself. And what concerns me is that today instead of telling kids, as I was told in my day — by people, by television, by books, by comics, by culture, by teachers, etc. — "Just you wait. One of these days, when you're older, you'll be chasing those girls like you wouldn't believe," society is instead telling them, "Hey, maybe the fact that you find those girls 'icky' means you're gay!" and pushing them to "explore" their sexualities and try everything in sight rather than start from the default expectation of heterosexuality and just not worry about it until puberty kicks in. I wonder how I myself would have turned out in the midst of such confusing messages, and it saddens me that kids today have to deal with all that mess instead of being given a clear picture of an ideal world to shoot for — yes, I mean a 100% heterosexual world — even if because of nature's flaws we'll never reach it (unless genetic research gets so good we can find whatever may cause homosexuality and carve it out of the genome). [–MikeAnon]

ja

Anonymous said: "So anyone opposed to homosexuality on the grounds of religion, culture or natural revulsion (helluva lot of people) is a repressed homosexual, huh?

Must be nice in your simple little world. You should get out more."

So should you! In my lifetime, I can count over a dozen people that I've observed who have made a HUGE PROTESTATION about those gays, only to find out that they either came out, or were discovered to have been on the Down Low.

Just because you don't want to see a phenomenon, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Anonymous

"I first saw A GUTTED FISH when I was eight years old. It made me sick….As I got older I learned how to clean a fish and got over my initial reaction. Growing up, wow."

[MikeAnon:] Yes, in growing up you recognize that there are disgusting things in this world that are nevertheless necessary either to your personal survival or to the survival of the species. You learn to accept and approve of gutted fish because if you don't gut the fish, you don't eat, and after enough of not-eating, you die. You might find your parents' kissing to be gross, but you learn to accept and approve of heterosexual behavior because if it weren't for that, the human species would die out, and probably you yourself wouldn't exist. But homosexuality is necessary neither for personal survival nor the survival of the species. It's not how anyone got here, how anyone stays here, or how anyone ever will get here. It's a totally superfluous facet of human existence that, were it to vanish tomorrow — if every homosexual and bisexual person in the world woke up straight tomorrow morning — no one would miss it, and the human race would continue on, business as usual — probably happier than usual, no longer having the need to deal with all the confusion that came from it. The same simply cannot be said for behavior like eating food and making babies — take those away, and it's Game Over. [–MikeAnon]

ja

Anonymous said: "Your attempt to tar everybody who is averse to 'gay' culture with the same brush as being aggressive, violent or some kind of anti-homosexual fascist is therefore without any foundation whatsover."

It's not about being against anyone who's averse to gay culture. I'm not into gay culture myself, yet I'm speaking about the civil rights of those who are. I'm 'tarring' only the viewpoint of those who would deny people their rights. That's where the anti-homosexual fascism comes into play.

You are wrong to characterize me or anyone who shares my viewpoint as us trying to cram gay culture down your throat (so to speak). If you're truly paying attention, you know that's not what we're doing.

There's no problem with anyone who's uncomfortable with sexual acts they're not into. That's not the standard we've been talking about here. When MikeAnon – or anyone – talks in language, the bottom line of which is that gays should not exist in this world… THAT is fascism.

And when gone unchecked, unchallenged… that attitude grows into the kind of monster that fuels ignorance and hatred to the extent where people find it justified to physically hurt another person just because they're different (gay, black, ugly, Liberal, Conservative, Muslim, foreign, WHATEVER). Worse still, when unchecked or unchallenged, it grows into a worldwide collective attitude that it's okay to deny people their personal rights and liberties, forcing them to be second & third-class citizens.

Or it grows into the most terrifying thing of all, like in Uganda, with the legislation in play that would apply the death penalty to those people who are gay. And once you do that, then it's an easy step to apply that standard to other ethnicities, to your enemies, or to those whom you wish to subjugate.

So you can characterize anything I've written about this subject as hyperbolic rhetoric all you wish. It wouldn't be the case, and you know it. This is the real world where millions of others' worlds overlap with everyone else's on this planet. I'm speaking up for a standard where you don't have to be into a certain culture, but you damned well should respect it enough to attain its basic human rights.

Jeff Z

Those who stood in the way of civil rights and interracial marriage wound up on the wrong side of history. So will the homophobes(I'm straight and married, by the way- just not arrogant enough to insist that my sexuality is the only acceptable one).

Anonymous

"You just contradicted your own argument AGAINST gays by admitting that their feelings ARE NATURAL!"

[MikeAnon:] Not at all. Just because a feeling is natural doesn't make it right to act upon. If I saw a hot married woman and became sexually aroused by her hotness, that natural reaction wouldn't be a license to commit adultery with her. Nor does a homosexual's natural arousal reaction toward a member of the same sex constitute an automatic stamp of approval upon the acts that might result from that reaction. Heck, we see this dichotomy between natural passion and withheld action all the time in comics. Batman would LOVE to kill the Joker — that's his natural passion — but he doesn't do it because he knows it would be wrong. I see homosexuality in the same light. [–MikeAnon]

"We are in no danger, NOR WILL WE EVER BE, of extinction due to homosexuals being themselves."

[MikeAnon:] So you're saying that if we ever did get back down to an extinction-level threshold, it *would* be okay to stop homosexuals from "being themselves?" See, *that* is the kind of "logic" that actually makes no sense — no different, really, from the kind of logic that says, "If it's natural, then it's okay," because what you're implying is, "If it were *not* natural, then it would *not* be okay." Homosexual behavior is either right or wrong. Origins and conditions don't matter. [–MikeAnon]

Anonymous

"THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ANYONE BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY….as if their sexuality determines whether or not they're good quality people. BEING GOOD QUALITY PEOPLE is what determines this!"

[MikeAnon:] (Sigh)…I did not say, "Gay people are evil." I said, "There is something wrong with gay people." Namely, they are gay. This is not making a moral judgment about the quality of someone's soul. This is merely a statement of biological fact. There is a way human sexuality is supposed to work. Gay ain't it. [–MikeAnon]

"In EVERY aspect of the animal kingdom (the human animal included), a percentage of each species is homosexual. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS NOT THE PREDOMINATE TRAIT OF A SPECIES, DOES NOT MEAN IT ISN'T PART OF THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS."

[MikeAnon:] And just because something is natural, that doesn't make it a good and right thing. In every species of the animal kingdom, things go wrong — *naturally* wrong. Maybe a dog is born without forelegs. Maybe a bird is missing its magnetic compass. To say that homosexuality is present in the animal kingdom says nothing besides, "Sometimes the same thing that goes wrong in humans goes wrong in animals, too." [–MikeAnon]

"Since when are you the arbiter of what should and should not be?"

[MikeAnon:] I'm not. Reproduction is. If two guys could have sex and make a baby, or if two women could have sex and make a baby, then homosexuality would be normal. Sex has a primary function, and that's reproduction. Sexual orientation likewise has a function, and that's to lead you to someone with whom you can reproduce. That's the only way you can naturally get babies, and that's how 97% of human beings are wired up, so there's zero rational grounds for rejecting heterosexuality as the "normal" baseline for human sexuality. Consequently, if your sexual orientation is wired so that it either (1) only leads you to people with whom you can't make babies or (2) doesn't even make a distinction between whom you can make babies with and whom you can't, your sexual orientation is unfortunately jacked up.

Don't hate me for recognizing that fact. I didn't make the world. I'm just not letting people's feelings blind me to how the world actually is. Also, please note the utter lack of religious content in everything I've said so far. Just as it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that there's something wrong with homosexuality, it doesn't take a priest, either. [–MikeAnon]

"If you're objecting because of religion, then you need to know that God created people as they are."

[MikeAnon:] Some people are born without limbs. Some people are born blind from birth. Some people have Tourettes. Some people have Down Syndrome. Are you saying God *wants* these things? That God *likes* these things? That God *approves* of these things? That these things were all part of God's plan? What kind of loving, caring God would would *deliberately* design a biological system in which some people would be attracted only to persons with whom they cannot make babies? Seriously: is that even the kind of world that *you* would design? Have you no heart? The kind of God that would *purposely* instill "you're never going to have your own babies with the one you love" into certain members of His chosen species is a cruel, sadistic God not worth worshipping.

Yeah, I was referring to the implication that people in this thread were somehow promoting homosexuality like it was a sport you can take up and not as a human rights issue ("Let's get back to comics…not jokers with an agenda to 'give it a try'"). Which, as I say, never happened.

But I'm totally sympathetic to the trauma you must have suffered from experiencing something that women have to put up with all the time.

Anonymous

Marco,

Now that you provide details, they jog my memory a bit. The story you refer to would have been in Chamber of Darkness or Tower of Shadows, right? I collected those titles a few years ago, and read them. I can kind of picture the Steranko-drawn gravedigger in memory; unfortunately, I hadn’t remembered his name.

Jeff Z

Anonymous

Jeff Z – I wondered how long it would be before someone trotted out that old myth – designed merely to embarrass those who are opposed to gay culture into silence. Doesn't happen in any other discussion. If anyone ever says "Pedophiles/rapists/murderers disgust me!", nobody ever suggests that such vocal critics are closet pedos, rapists or murderers.

So anyone opposed to homosexuality on the grounds of religion, culture or natural revulsion (helluva lot of people) is a repressed homosexual, huh?

I prefaced my comment about Ditko with the words "My understanding". Those words alone restrict the scope of what I'm saying and prevent it from being presented as an irrefutable fact. I did have a source for my comment. You should not assume that my inability to point you to the source somehow means it did not exist.

The fact that you have multiple people repeating the same exact information about Ditko means that we are either collectively lying, collectively mislead, or it is simply true. I have no incentive or motive to lie about Ditko. If a great number of people believe the information, that tends to imply the unnamed source is someone people trusted. The source may have been lying or mislead hence my choice to say "My understanding".

I did a few searches. I haven't found anything that looks familiar. I did find this page of art which is amusing. Check all the credits and read the artist's comment at the very bottom of the psge.

Jeff Z

"Well, being gay is apparently part of superhero comics now. And if I said I don't need to see guys kissing on TV, I'd be told "You don't need to watch."

Jim (Drew) – you don't need to read."

My Sarcasm-Sense is tingling here, but yeah, pretty much.

"God save me from the advances of guys who try to proposition me when I'm not the slightest bit interested, and who aren't prepared to take "get lost" for an answer. Let's get back to comics…not jokers with an agenda to "give it a try"."

Anonymous

God save me from the advances of guys who try to proposition me when I'm not the slightest bit interested, and who aren't prepared to take "get lost" for an answer. Let's get back to comics…not jokers with an agenda to "give it a try".

Anonymous

Jim – I was looking through an old G.I. Joe issue and I noticed that Jon D'Agostino inked it. I didn't realize he ever worked for Marvel. I was wondering if you had any stories about any of the Archie guys (Stan G, Dan DeCarlo, etc)

Jeff Z

Highly recommended: the movie God Save Me From Your Followers, in which a real-life Christian apologizes to the gay community for the suffering they endured at the hands of the Santorum variety "christians

Anonymous

Hundreds of species may indulge in acts of homosexuality, but that's only in the same way that dogs hump lampposts…they're just not fussy. Only humans take it to the extreme lengths we're discussing. I may love some of my male friends and relatives…doesn't mean I want to play the ol' "brown-box boogie" with them.

Jeff Z

A thousand threads ago, I turned my back on a debate about religion Mike Anon and I were engaged in. Seeing his pathetic homophobia, I regret engaging in any kind of discussion with him at all. Hundreds of species exhibit homosexual behavior but only one engages in homophobia. So which is "unnatural"? Santorum votes have to come from somewhere, I guess– more's the pity.

Anonymous

Ja,

I was making no judgements about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, only pointing out that castigating someone for their natural aversion to, or revulsion of it, and often trying to bully them into an intellectual acceptance of its 'equality', is surely just as wrong as any other kind of militant confrontation of someone who is of another inborn or acquired persuasion.

Not everyone who is revolted by homosexuality condones verbal or physical abuse of homosexuals, instead taking the view that whatever happens between consenting adults in their own homes is none of their business. Your attempt to tar everybody who is averse to 'gay' culture with the same brush as being aggressive, violent or some kind of anti-homosexual fascist is therefore without any foundation whatsover.

Defiant1 said: Sorry. Any article about Ditko and the Spider-man movie would have been read 8-9 years ago. I could not direct you to a source.********************I see. You mentioned the Ditko story with a degree of certainty that made me hope you did have a source. I've seen this story repeated many times over the years, but never with a source cited, which is one of the things that leads me to suspect it's an urban legend. That and the reasons I noted above… it just doesn't seem likely (or good business practice) to offer someone money for nothing, particularly unsolicited money.

Perhaps a more plausible scenario would be that Marvel offered Ditko money in exchange for doing something, such as giving an interview or promoting the film in some way, and he refused under those conditions. But that's just speculation. Absent any proof or verification from a source, I think it does Ditko a disservice to repeat the "Ditko turned down Spider-Man film money" rumor.

Anonymous

Re: “If someone is going to argue that homosexuals feel the way they do because they're born that way and that homosexuality is therefore 'natural', then one could surely argue that those who feel revolted by such behaviour were born that way and that their revulsion is likewise natural. Therefore, any insulting description of the latter group's expression of their natural state as being ignorant and hateful, etc., surely qualifies as the same kind of bile-filled intolerance that the former group ascribes to their opponents.”

Human sexuality is incredibly diverse. It is clearly not the case that all humans are simply purely homosexual or purely heterosexual. While the Kinsey scale is somewhat out of date, it was an early recognition of this fact, and suggests that yes, for some and to some degree, homosexuality is a choice. So whether or not homosexuality is acceptable turns on whether it is harmful, to the person acting on it, those around them, or to society in general. This is a more complicated question, but here, the burden of proof is on those who want to describe it as harmful. (To save time, let’s note that “because it makes you uncomfortable” does not rise to the level of harm I’m talking about.) Do some people “choose” to be gay? I would be amazed if the answer were anything but yes. Is that okay? Of course, why not? No one is born Catholic, or Methodist, or Muslim, or Orthodox Jewish (I’m referring to Judaism in its religious, not ethnic, sense), but we allow it, because it’s a choice people are entitled to make. Freedom, baby.

Equally, human attitudes are non-manichean, and they are also “natural” only in the loosest sense of the word. MikeAnon didn’t live in an inputless bubble for the first 8 years of life (I’m guessing). It’s unlikely that his reaction to two men kissing rose straight out of his lizard brain. Influences, subtle and not, shaped his thinking and reaction to his environment. That’s totally normal, and would be weird if it didn’t happen that way. But again, harm is what matters. MikeAnon can feel and think any way he wants. But only so far as his behavior, and collectively, all of our behavior, doesn’t cause harm. And to deny an entire class of Americans, on the basis of behavior that is itself not harmful, full and complete access to the array of rights that everyone else has access to, causes them a great deal of real, provable harm: couples split apart in hospitals, denial of the basic human right to entwine yourself with the person you love, public discrimination. It’s unconscionable in a free, rights-based society.

Finally, there’s something a little embarrassing about suggesting anything analogous between the treatment of GLBT people, who have suffered immense physical and psychological harm over history from the forces of bigotry, and the frankly mild rebukes bigots have to put up with for trying to reframe their personal tastes as public policy.

ja

Ole,

Thank you for the clarification, I appreciate it.

I agree with you. If you have a problem with what nature has made, then take it up with nature!

However – I've said it before – I do love those beautiful cute little Ku Klux Klan outfits. I love those wonderful white robes, and those stylishly pointy hoods that they wear as they are burning crosses on the lawns of whomever they happen to hate, or when they're on the way to lynch someone from a big old tree.

Why, you may ask? BECAUSE I LIKE MY IDIOTS RIGHT OUT WHERE I CAN EASILY SPOT THEM.

ja

Anonymous said: "If someone is going to argue that homosexuals feel the way they do because they're born that way and that homosexuality is therefore 'natural', then one could surely argue that those who feel revolted by such behaviour were born that way and that their revulsion is likewise natural. Therefore, any insulting description of the latter group's expression of their natural state as being ignorant and hateful, etc., surely qualifies as the same kind of bile-filled intolerance that the former group ascribes to their opponents."

Wrong. That is a false equivalency.

It's a value judgment. One disagreement doesn't cancel out the other. They're not equal in any way. Certainly not when the one opinion has to do with the belief and statement that "… Something that clearly ought not to exist — that the world unquestionably would be better off without…". This is not the equivalent to those who disagree with such a statement.

Society, more and more, is making a value judgment that the way we have acted toward certain groups has been wrong, and must be changed for the better. They're making the value judgment to be good people. Better than those who can't see beyond their own prejudice and ignorance.

To equate the one side who wishes gays never to exist, to the other side that stands up to such nonsense with better, more inclusive and humane standards, is a falsehood. It makes as much sense as when Bill O'Reilly claiming that if gay marriage becomes the norm, it will lead to man being able to marry a goat, duck, turtle or a dolphin.

Said plainly like Anonymous did, or in the over-the-top way that O'Reilly stated things, it's all various forms of hate speech. The ultimate goal of which is the eradication of homosexuality, even though that means classifying those who are gay as lesser human beings.

People can see through your attempt at intellectualizing fearful bigotry and hateful prejudice.

This is from the court that ruled Proposition (H)8 in California to be unconstitutional:

“Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples.”

ja

Anonymous

MikeAnon: I'm going to try to take a leaf out of the book of a great teacher and illustrate a point by way of parable.

Once upon a time, in the very late 1960's in Southern Virginia, there was a three year old white boy.

This boy spent a lot of time with his grandparents, who considered themselves good, Christian folk. The grandmother prayed and read her Bible every morning and the grandfather sang in the church choir. Every room in the house had a copy of a religious themed painting in it.

Now, these good Christian, Southern folk of a certain age spent a good deal of their free time complaining about black people, about how they were stupid, and lazy, and bad,if not criminal and the three year old boy took it all in and believed them. His beloved grandparents wouldn't lie to him about something like that, would they?

So, one very hot summer day, the grandmother and a lady-friend were out driving in the country with the three year old boy in the back seat, and they came upon an old black lady walking along the side of the road. The two white women decided to offer to give the other woman a lift. The three year old boy, having taken to heart the message of black people being evil and with a mixture of terror and hatred as pure as a three year old could manage, threw a fit, broke down in tears and begged the women not to let the black woman in the car, much to the white women's mortification and embarrassment.

Despite the awkwardness of the little boy making a scene, the black woman got her lift, and the boy got a lecture from his racist grandmother about not creating embarrassing scenes.

Flash forward three years and the boy begins to go to school. "Massive resistance" in Virginia has failed and the now six year old boy's first grade year is the first year that his school system is truly integrated. He and a lot of the kids in his grandmother's neighborhood, whose parents are just as racist as the boy's grandparents, are assigned to a black teacher. While these other children's parents pull their kids out of the black teacher's class and have them reassigned to a white teacher, the boy's parents refuse to do so.

The boy, whose moral sense has become slightly more developed since he was three learned a vital lesson in racial tolerance.

That lesson got him thinking over the years about how people should treat each other. Over time, he came a long way from the boy he was when he was five years old and he scandalized his grandparents by claiming he didn't and couldn't love Jesus because, after having internalized the greater society's homophobia, men loving men was bad.

He came to the conclusion that one's physical conditions – one's race, gender, size, weight, sexual orientation, physical ability and creed – didn't really matter. The true person was the consciousness within the body – the soul, for those spiritually inclined, or the electro-chemical impulses which make up consciousness, for those of a more scientific bent.

It is people's souls that fall in love with each other and want to share their lives with each other. Their bodies come along for the ride and are merely one of the many tools used to express that love.

He also came to the conclusion that a just society is one that errs on the side of fairness, on compassion, and on empathy. A just society does not codify discrimination into law by privileging the narrow interpretation of one religious dogma over another.

He also came to the conclusion that denying people's souls the rights to form loving bonds,to acknowledge those bonds, and to have legal protection for such bonds is an affront to human dignity.

Anonymous

If someone is going to argue that homosexuals feel the way they do because they're born that way and that homosexuality is therefore 'natural', then one could surely argue that those who feel revolted by such behaviour were born that way and that their revulsion is likewise natural. Therefore, any insulting description of the latter group's expression of their natural state as being ignorant and hateful, etc., surely qualifies as the same kind of bile-filled intolerance that the former group ascribes to their opponents.

Anonymous

Jim,

I may have worded my earlier post poorly. It was hastily written. I have no doubt that if you could have snapped your fingers and made Jiminey Cricket part of the Marvel Universe you would have. I fully understand what it's like to be stuck in the middle. I have made the statement "this is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG" to the point that I was told "If you don't like it, go work for Bob." (Bob being the owner of a rival company).

I can't speak for the other participants of this blog but I certainly understand what a bitter pill the Valiant episode must have been. Like Bill Finger, Ditko and Kirby are the 400lb. gorillas in the room. There is also some distance with them. I doubt that I would bring up the returned art or rights issue on a Ditko blog that he personally ran; I ovoid Valiant because I think it's a sore spot.

"He was xenophobic, and he hated Muslims. He just stewed with his rage and hatred, fearing them so much that he decided to kill as many of them as he could."

Just a small clarification there, ja, if I may:

ABB thought that attacking Muslims directly would just make the general public more sympathetic towards them. So instead he set out to "punish" the "cultural Marxists" of the co-governing Labour Party, whom he deemed "traitors" and responsible for his imagined "islamisation" of Norway and Europe (it's a conspiracy, you see…).

His way of doing that was to set off a bomb outside a government building in Oslo (killing 8 and doing damage for countless millions in any currency) and a mass murder of kids at the Labour Party's youth organisation's peaceful summer camp at Utøya?

32 of the 69 victims at Utøya were younger than 18 – legally children. 2 of those were 14 years old, 7 were 15… You get the picture.

In a country of less than 5 million citizens, most people don't have to look very far to find someone affected by this, the most horrific crime in Norway since World War II. My wife's colleague had one daughter murdered and another seriously wounded at Utøya.

ABB considers himself a hero and a saviour, and thinks that in 60-70 years we will have come around to his point of view. Now, I'm generally fairly pessimistic, but even I can't imagine that even 70 years will make it look okay to murder defenseless children in cold blood.

The trial starts in April.

This was just meant as a clarification, and OF COURSE the Norway terror attack has nothing to do with MikeAnon! The only direct connection is that I just don't want to see hateful remarks stand unchallenged any longer. The overwhelming majority of people, even the most hateful and bigoted, are not likely to go out and kill anyone, let alone harm anyone physically. But keep propagating the hatred, and SOMEONE – mentally disturbed or not – will sooner or later go out and "do something about it".

To the point:

I have always failed to see the charm in going around hating people at all, particularly people who have done you NO HARM WHATSOEVER and who simply ARE different in some way – different gender, different skin colour, different sexuality…

Thanks for your words of wisdom as always. That's why I always find that going to the source or those in the know is the best policy when it comes to issues like this. My old journalism profs would be so proud…

Sorry. Any article about Ditko and the Spider-man movie would have been read 8-9 years ago. I could not direct you to a source. I will say that I weighed the credibility of the source when I read it or heard it and that is why I repeated it. I find it congruent to his other comments and behavior in the past. Keep in mind that I equate "not pursuing one's rights" as the equivalent of turning down money. Ditko's comment could have been sarcasm.

Let's say I bring a cooler of water to a camp site. People are drinking from that cooler. I don't expect the people to quit unless I ask them to. I don't expect them to offer me a drink from it unless I tell them. Right or wrong, silence is sometimes the wrong choice to accomplish an objective.

ja

Dear Ole,

My honor. My pleasure. My (and everyone else's) duty.

In just one of the 2011 Norway attacks by Anders Behring Breivik last summer, he dressed in a homemade police uniform, showed false identification to gain access to the island of Utøya and subsequently opened fire at the participants, killing 69 attendees and wounding 60. 55 of these had critical injuries and 1 died two days later in hospital and became the 69th victim.

He was xenophobic, and he hated Muslims. He just stewed with his rage and hatred, fearing them so much that he decided to kill as many of them as he could.

When MikeAnon writes "… Something that clearly ought not to exist — that the world unquestionably would be better off without…", it is NOT AT ALL a huge leap to see his kind of hatred manifest itself into the kind of thing that happened in Norway. Or that happens countless times across the world.

MikeAnon's attitude gets bigger, uglier, and more powerful when people don't speak up to put it back under the shitty rock it came from. It can grow like a lethal virus from his part of the world, to Uganda, where there is a legislative proposal that would broaden the criminalization of same-sex relations, in which an offender would receive the death penalty, or "the offense of homosexuality" in which an offender would receive life imprisonment.

Or here in the USA, where the dying Republican Party (some of which are actually affiliated with the Uganda bill) is fighting mightily to deny the civil rights of gays who do no harm to them whatsoEVER.

In a world wherein everyone is more informed than at any other time in history, there are still 'dark ages' kind of people people who in this world choose to be close-minded. Bigoted. Hateful. And I think, downright evil in the way they try to harm other people's lives, just because they're just the slightest bit different from them.

I first saw A TOMATO ON MY PLATE when I was eight years old. It made me sick. It made me feel like I had witnessed something that simply should not ever happen. Eight years old. How does an eight-year-old "choose" to feel like that? And why should an eight-year-old who feels like that "choose" to ever feel otherwise?

Later on I grew to enjoy eating tomatoes, but man I sure hated them when I was a kid.

I first saw A GUTTED FISH when I was eight years old. It made me sick. It made me feel like I had witnessed something that simply should not ever happen. Eight years old. How does an eight-year-old "choose" to feel like that? And why should an eight-year-old who feels like that "choose" to ever feel otherwise?

As I got older I learned how to clean a fish and got over my initial reaction. Growing up, wow.

ja

(Continued)

MikeAnon said: “So why should we teach our children, who can recognize this fact on sight, that THEY need to change their natural feelings, rather than advise homosexuals that THEY need to control their natural feelings so as not to offend the normal people around them?” HAHAHAH! You just contradicted your own argument AGAINST gays by admitting that their feelings ARE NATURAL!

To clarify, ‘normal’ is NOT being an ignorantly hateful bigot such as yourself.

“…in light of what's happened in California today: Something that clearly ought not to exist — that the world unquestionably would be better off without –"… GET THIS ‘STRAIGHT’, MIKE: THIS IS ONLY CLEAR TO YOUR HATEFUL BIGOTED MIND. Your hatred and bigotry is the thing that clearly ought not to exist, and that the world would be better off without.

“…has been put, probably without remedy, on the same plane as that which clearly needs to exist for the continuation of the species.” What an amazingly MORONIC thing to say. Homosexuality isn’t the predominate trait of our species, especially in a world that has gone from 3 Billion in population in 1960 to 7 BILLION PEOPLE TODAY. We are in no danger, NOR WILL WE EVER BE, of extinction due to homosexuals being themselves. Heterosexuals being themselves is what has more than doubled this planet’s population in the last 52 years, which really buggers your lame thesis right there in its tracks. So please, pull some more bullshit theories out of your ass.

I really used to enjoy reading your comments. That is, until I found out they came from such a hateful and bigoted mindset that is the most outward representation of toxicity and cancer that I can think of.

MikeAnon, being gay does not define who a person is, or make them any less of a human being. However, being a hateful bigot such as yourself ABSOLUTELY DEFINES YOU.

ja

*sigh*

MikeAnon, you are so shamefully full of shit, it is not even funny.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ANYONE BECAUSE THEY ARE GAY. What a fearfully ignorant and stupid conclusion from which to spring forth your asinine opinions about the value of folk, as if their sexuality determines whether or not they're good quality people. BEING GOOD QUALITY PEOPLE is what determines this!

In EVERY aspect of the animal kingdom (the human animal included), a percentage of each species is homosexual. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS NOT THE PREDOMINATE TRAIT OF A SPECIES, DOES NOT MEAN IT ISN'T PART OF THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS. Since when are you the arbiter of what should and should not be?

Sexuality is sexuality. If you're objecting because of religion, then you need to know that God created people as they are. Who the hell are YOU to determine that what God created isn't right? Just because of something MAN (not God) wrote in the Bible? Bullshit. People are what they are, and if you don't like it, then I hope you curse God for making your life miserable because gays exist, not gays for existing in the first place.

“[MikeAnon:] I'm sorry to have to get into this…” Well, you don’t *have* to flaunt your ignorance and hatred, but I see you have a need to be the Village Bigot, so okay.

I'm sorry that you stew in your anger over the very existence of gays. You don't like guys kissing? Good! Don't kiss guys! That 2 men kissing "simply should not ever happen" is the conclusion of disgusting bigots who can't be happy unless they are pissing on a class of people that does no harm to ANYONE in this world for being who they are.

You place yourself on the same vile and hatefully bigoted level as White Supremecists, as Nazis, as gang members and as plain old bitter men who yell at imaginary boogeymen in clouds, who share the same kinship as you do. How proud you must be.

"Homosexuality ISN'T supposed to happen." Again, who the hell are YOU to determine this? I hope this internal hatred of yours metastasizes into such a ball of pain within your mind and soul that it cripples you in life. Seems like you’re not too far away from that happening, from what I have read. I hope that you have close people in your life you discover are gay. They’re there anyway, likely not telling you about themselves because they already sense your hatred of the very existence of them as human beings. I suspect they (and their loved ones) see you for what you are and will turn (or have already turned) their backs on you. You will grow old and alone in your life, as you realize you find less and less people who share your level of bile and bigotry.

That is, unless you’re able to pull your head out of your ass and understand that sexuality is but the smallest aspect of WHO PEOPLE ARE AS PEOPLE. That you as a person are not judged by where you put your dick, but as what KIND of a (kind, understanding, helpful, productive, compassionate) person you are!

RE: "Hmm. Well if Marvel did offer Ditko movie money, then it does make me wonder if marvel will be giving money to the Kirby heirs"

Ladies and gentlemen, please understand that when someone is suing you, or even threatening to sue you, that every action you take, every word you say can and will be used against you in court. It is impossible to be generous, or even fair, when someone is taking or threatening legal action against you without it being turned into an admission of the propriety of their claims. Jack Kirby's legal threats against Marvel and Steve Gerber's suit against Marvel delayed for years the sales incentive payment plan, the character creation incentive plan and the old artwork return program I initiated, just because enacting those things might have been seen by a jury as tacit admissions of the legitimacy of their claims.

RE: "Do you really feel naive is the proper word? I think innocent is a better word. A business mentality can corrupt a social responsibility to be honest and trustworthy."

Innocent. Yes, that's a better word. Sometimes I look back at what I did when I was young and I'm amazed at how savvy I was so quickly, and sometimes I'm amazed at how I ever survived being so young, foolish and…let's call it "innocent."

RE: "If Marc and I suck the wind out of the blog, what is your idea of what blog comments should be?"

Everyone should say whatever they wish. I read all the comments. I find yours and Marc's (and most others) very thoughtful. Anyone who doesn't can avoid the people they find tedious.

Jack was first sent a four-page art return document made especially for him. I have a copy of that document. I objected. I insisted that Jack be sent the exact same document that everyone else signed. I had sworn to Steve Ditko that Jack would have to sign exactly the same document as he, Steve, did, which was a condition Steve insisted upon before he would sign. I fought like a wolverine. I won. Jack eventually signed the same, standard one-page document as everyone else.

P.S. Jack had already signed HUNDREDS of copies of that one-page document during the time he worked for Marvel under contract between 1975 and 1978, as required by the routine artwork return process at the time.

Many such documents signed by Jack attested to Marvel's ownership of all that he had created for Marvel.

P.P.S. That one-page document was ENTIRELY REDUNDANT, belt and suspenders, because his employee contract — let me make this clear — his EMPLOYEE CONTRACT, which specified that his work was already W4H because he was an employee (and therefore fell under the very definition of W4H) was the governing agreement.

Morally, Jack was, and his estate is entitled to far more that either got. No question. Legally, however, I think no. If I could snap my magic fingers and have moral justice done, there would be no contentions. Jack and all the other founding fathers of Marvel, or their estates, would be justly compensated.

And I was curious as to what your thoughts were on it? I know you've spoken/written at length about the whole art return policy and Jack Kirby's issues with that, but I thought this author made some interesting and/or valid points. You?"

It's an emotional, outsider's take.

Now for an emotional insider's take: I have always said that the comic book business from the get-go has been unjust. If the world were right, Jack Kirby would have been properly rewarded for his efforts. Steve Ditko would have been properly rewarded for his efforts. Stan, though better rewarded than those two, would have been better rewarded for his efforts. Marv Wolfman would have been better rewarded for the success of Blade and other things. Len Wein, Dave Cockrum, Herb Trimpe, you name 'em would have been better rewarded.

I would have been better rewarded.

Funny, everyone seems to be up in arms over Kirby's unjust treatment — though he SIGNED HIS RIGHTS AWAY WILLINGLY MANY TIMES (I have copies of the documents) — and pretty much nobody is up in arms over the fact that white collar criminals stole my VALIANT creations. I never signed away anything, there. Anyone notice the Comics Journal leaping to my defense?

No, I am not comparing my small creative output to Kirby's immense output. But isn't the principle the same?

Anyway….

There is no "droit moral" in this country. Work made for hire is part of the copyright law. Marvel is venal, selfish and corrupt. So is DC. But by the benighted laws of this land, they are right.

The criminals who stole VALIANT were not right, but by falsifying documents, lying under oath, buying people off and having the money to employ really good, corrupt lawyers, they got away with it. By the way, I have the documents there, too.

Defiant1 said:My understanding is that Steve Ditko did turn down money from the Spider-man movie.*********************Have you got a source for that claim? I've read claims/speculation about this in many places, but I've never seen anyone cite a source to prove it.

I myself am skeptical, because it seems very unlikely that a corporation such as Marvel would offer unsolicited money to anyone. Given the fact that Stan Lee had to sue to get the money to which he was contractually obligated, it seems *even more unlikely* that Marvel would be offering money to Ditko when he wasn't even asking for it, particularly when he has no legal basis to ask for it even if he did want to.

I'm also skeptical that Ditko would turn down money if it was offered. The fact that Ditko won't do things that would net him some easy money (such as selling his original art or doing commissions) doesn't mean he does not like money. IIRC Jim quoted Ditko once as saying something to the effect of how he doesn't feel entitled to money for any of his past work, but wouldn't turn it down if Marvel chose to gift him with it. From what I understand about him, Ditko is not opposed to getting paid, he simply is not willing to do certain things for money that most people in his shoes would choose to do.

My understanding is that Steve Ditko did turn down money from the Spider-man movie. Stan Lee had to sue Marvel Entertainment because they were shortchanging him money owed through creative bookkeeping.

It's my opinion, but feel Kirby didn't get a fair share because he didn't know how to market his name and his work. In the past couple of weeks, Stan Lee has posted various pictures of himself online with Spielburg, George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, and others. People may not have any clue who Stan Lee is, but most of them know an "A-List" Hollywood celebrity. Stan isn't stupid. He knows that it adds value to his name to be seen with these people. Stan Lee is a salesman. His marketing is a big reason we remember Ditko and Kirby.

Anonymous

"You come across as one of those people who complain about the Howard Stern radio show, or gay marriage, falsely claiming that the very existence of them is ruining your day, when both of those things have NEVER negatively affected your life whatsoEVER. When all you have to do is change the radio station, or simply choose not to get your balls in a twist because Adam & Steve got married and then live their lives not in your house, you instead choose to be offended by their very existence."

[MikeAnon:] I'm sorry to have to get into this, but it really offends me that when it comes to gay marriage the burden of "choice" is always placed on the people who have nothing wrong with them, whereas the people who do have something wrong with them are cast as having no "choice" at all.

I first saw two guys kiss when I was eight years old. It made me sick. It made me feel like I had witnessed something that simply should not ever happen. Eight years old. How does an eight-year-old "choose" to feel like that? And why should an eight-year-old who feels like that "choose" to ever feel otherwise? Homosexuality ISN'T supposed to happen. So why should we teach our children, who can recognize this fact on sight, that THEY need to change their natural feelings, rather than advise homosexuals that THEY need to control their natural feelings so as not to offend the normal people around them?

I know this is not going to be a popular post, but it needs to be said, especially in light of what's happened in California today: Something that clearly ought not to exist — that the world unquestionably would be better off without — has been put, probably without remedy, on the same plane as that which clearly needs to exist for the continuation of the species. If this doesn't disturb you to your core, I honestly don't know why.

Now that the opposing view's been heard from, I hope we can get back to talking about comics and leave delicate social and political matters aside, save for when those matters impact directly on the post at hand. [–MikeAnon]

Do you really feel naive is the proper word? I think innocent is a better word. A business mentality can corrupt a social responsibility to be honest and trustworthy. Don't think your point zipped over my head. I was just retracing the possible scenarios and thinking out loud.

Anonymous,

If Marc and I suck the wind out of the blog, what is your idea of what blog comments should be? I've always marveled over people who read comments with the expectation to be entertained & inspired, yet they offer forth none of the very content they hope to find. Am I supposed to appeal to your specif whims? Perhaps you aren't so interesting yourself? I know that when I walk into a room, more than half the people will have a huge smile on their face from ear to ear. The people who aren't smiling are probably the people I like to see miserable.

Paul Dushkind

It's rumored that Steve Ditko was offered money for the first Spider-Man movie. Apparently, he turned it down, because he didn't want any fees beyond what he originally agreed to.

The theaters have a teaser poster for The Avengers, with a big A logo with an arrow for a crossbar, based on the comic-book masthead, lettered by Gaspar Saladino. It seems to me that the estate of Gaspar Saladino deserves a royalty.

I wish all the original artwork ever was preserved archivally, and kept accessible, so that everything could be reprinted with its original quality or better. A pipe dream I know.

ja wrote "I read his posts, and sometimes I don't. Same with anyone else who pontificates with duration. I'm one of them myself. I'd much rather have opinions on this blog that I can skip over if I wish, rather than have Drive By Dicks like yourself on this blog who thinks insulting people and acting like a pompous dipshit is a fun or justified thing to do. "

Anonymous

Well, it wasn't the most well-rounded critique, for sure.

Re: boycotting, I think you implicitly agree with my point when you say "There have been many instances of corporations pulling ads just because of some flack." Right, so there the boycott goal was "pull this offensive ad". Now, if you think, say, Marvel should go bankrupt and you'll never buy a Marvel product ever, no matter how they act in the future, that's more like vegans who boycott all meat-related products. It's perfectly fine but seems to reflect the idea that there is something inherently corrupt in Marvel, or that their actions were so egregious they can only be punished, not redeemed. I'm not convinced that's the idea behind the proposed boycott. I could be wrong about that, of course.

Anonymous

@Kgaard – I hear you. But the guy I was responding to also said that Kirby has been dead 20 years, and that he wasn't shrewd enough to get a batter deal. So he was doing more than criticizing a poorly-written article

As far as boycotting having a goal – I think you are right when we are talking about Occupy Wall Street or some other social movement. But when it comes to boycotting companies – there need be no goal. They respond to the all mighty dollar. There have been many instances of corporations pulling ads just because of some flack. So yeah, not going to see Avengers – for whatever reason – will hurt their profits – which is all they care about

Anonymous

@ Anonymous, re "boycotting": He (earlier Anon) didn't say boycotting was whiny. He said "it" (I assume "it" being the article in general) was whiny. Which is not the way I would put it, but I was also not impressed. For instance, the writer says that he "planned on seeing the movie the first week it opened" and acknowledges that he wrote for Marvel as recently as 2003. But Marvel's treatment of Kirby has been well-known, at least in comic circles, for decades. Is it really plausible that the huge comic nerd he claims to be just found out about all of this in the last few months? The failure to explain how he discovered Marvel's treatment of Kirby and/or the evolution of his thinking with respect to it is a giant hole at the center of the article. (It seems his thinking has certainly changed over the years, anyway, so it would be nice to know why.) (It's also awkward that Spider-Man is misspelled, but whatever.)

I mean, people should boycott the movie if they feel strongly about it, and they should also let it be known why they are doing it, but there should also be an end game of some kind: what change do you want to happen as a result of a successful boycott? (Let's just acknowledge that it's too late to do anything for Jack and Roz, right?) Payment to Kirby's heirs? General policy change for all creators (I have no idea what it currently is)? Revert rights and/or payment to living creators of WFH work, like Gary Friedrich? Not much point to boycotting if the company doesn't know how to respond in a positive way.

ja

Fran

In Spain we never got to see these custom comics as the aforementioned spider-Man and Power Pack.

Sure, Spider-Man was hugely popular. Power Pack was slipped as an 8-page back-up in the monthly X-Factor and later, in Uncanny X-Men. It required 3 months to see published an entire issue, so it never got past issue #20 or so.

But these kind of custom comics never saw light in Spain, and I understand it.

ja

Anonymous said: "Miyake did say both of those things, more or less (closer to more than less).

He and Defiant1 really suck the air out of this blog."

For you, maybe.

Conversations have participants who are more verbose than others. If you were in person with these people, and they talked your ear off, you'd make sure to avoid them in the future. Nothing wrong with that. However, on this (or any) comments section, you have the ability to skip over anyone's post that you wish.

You come across as one of those people who complain about the Howard Stern radio show, or gay marriage, falsely claiming that the very existence of them is ruining your day, when both of those things have NEVER negatively affected your life whatsoEVER.

When all you have to do is change the radio station, or simply choose not to get your balls in a twist because Adam & Steve got married and then live their lives not in your house, you instead choose to be offended by their very existence. Or in this case, offended by someone "sucking the air" out of this blog.

As if you are forced to read every post, which you are not. Puh-LEEZE.

Marc Miyake is long-winded. So what? He's got things to say. I read his posts, and sometimes I don't. Same with anyone else who pontificates with duration. I'm one of them myself. I'd much rather have opinions on this blog that I can skip over if I wish, rather than have Drive By Dicks like yourself on this blog who thinks insulting people and acting like a pompous dipshit is a fun or justified thing to do.

You know, DBDs who find it hilarious to jump into the conversation, only to be insulting and ridiculing. It's certainly your right to be a bullying jerk, and there's really nothing anyone can do about it.

Oh wait! There IS something we can do about it… we can just skip your posts whenever they pop up.

Anonymous

Actually, people like Defiant1, who tell the truth straight with no chaser, are a breath of fresh air on the Internet. I wish we had a dozen of him on here

And for the Anon who says boycotting is whiny – you're out of your mind. Do you know how many pallets of money Marvel made from the Spider-Man movies?? Do you know how much Ditko got from any of those movies?? Yeah, wake up

Anonymous

@ Jerry Bonner

It's Slate. It's whiny pathetic nonsense. "Hey, how about a boycott cause some dude that's been dead for nearly 20 years wasn't shrewd enough in business to get himself a better deal than what he got! Corporations are bad! derp derp derp…"

My guess is Ditko isn't mentioned because he had nothing to do with The Avengers, really. The lion's share of his Marvel work was on Spider-Man and Dr. Strange. Two books that Kirby had little, to no, influence on if I am recalling correctly.

Power Pack was published widely here in France, until issue 39, with sometimes big alterations on art or missing issues here and there. But we never saw the Spiderman Power Pack special.Culturally, France doesn't mix bandes dessinées and education. Helas, a lot of people would think it is "grotesque" to mix this kind of educational message with comics. sowe never saw the Heroes for Hope or Heroes against Hunger also in France. It's a pity, but that's like it.Power Pack was rather popular here: at the end of 2012, we'll published an issue of SCARCE devoted to Power Pack, isn't that a sign? 🙂

And I was curious as to what your thoughts were on it? I know you've spoken/written at length about the whole art return policy and Jack Kirby's issues with that, but I thought this author made some interesting and/or valid points. You?

In the 1980s, I believe sexual abuse of children wasn't considered a crime in some countries (I know in Portugal it wasn't). It wasn't until the Marc Dutroux case (raped six children and killed four of them) that European authorities started paying attention to pedophilia.

RE: "I'm not shocked that you got the reaction you did from your employer. They have to justify what they are charging and most people would spend more. If the expenses were somewhere in the ball park of what they were used to charging, I doubt the guy would have thought twice about what you submitted."

RE: " Did you ever fly out to San Francisco to do Levi’s Jeans ads for Foote-Cone Belding/Hoenig?"

Yes, and it's quite a tale. Too long to tell here. But I'll tell it soon.

RE: "What was making a TV spot like? What carried over from your comics experience and what didn't?"

Unfortunately, I wasn't in attendance when the commercial based on my U.S. Steel cartoon was filmed. I've been on the set for other shoots, though. It's like watching paint dry. Many takes, minute adjustments, long waits for all sorts of reasons between takes. Nobody cares what the writer thinks. They can be putting emphasis on the wrong words and nothing you say will cause them to get it right.

RE: "I'd also like to see any illustrations that you have from this period."

If I can dig any up, I'll show them. They're nothing to write home about. Alex Ross I ain't.

RE: "I'm guessing your height, attire, and of course your maturity and competence led the Grey people to treat you "as if [you] were for real," which you were. You didn't look like a kid. I envision you being dressed up like you were when you visited DC."

I wore a jacket and tie. I guess I looked older than I was.

RE: "I can't imagine the Power Pack custom comic doing well in Europe because I assume "message" comics have to be culturally in tune with the audience to be effective. Was Power Pack licensed in Europe?"

Power Pack had some exposure in Europe, and Spider-Man certainly was well-known. I suppose we weren't culturally in tune.

Anonymous

Marc, here in the UK some Power Pack stories were published as the back-up strip in the Star Wars comics (actually it was titled Return of the Jedi by the time I read any issues). I don't know whether they were published anywhere else in Europe, though.

I'm not shocked that you got the reaction you did from your employer. They have to justify what they are charging and most people would spend more. If the expenses were somewhere in the ball park of what they were used to charging, I doubt the guy would have thought twice about what you submitted.

From what I can tell, my family hails from England, not Ireland. A great uncle of mine from the 1700's cast the Liberty Bell. I was never really exposed to Irish-American culture until I was an adult. I remember the conflict being in the news all the time, but never really understood it. Equally so, I never understood what prompted it to fade away.

When I think of child abuse, I think of my nephew calling the police on his mom because she wouldn't let him go out with his friends on a Saturday night. I guess that's a form of emotional abuse, but the police didn't fall for it.

Anonymous

If you have any more advertising stories, I'd like to read them. Did you ever fly out to San Francisco to do Levi’s Jeans ads for Foote-Cone Belding/Hoenig? What was making a TV spot like? What carried over from your comics experience and what didn't?

I'd also like to see any illustrations that you have from this period.

I'm guessing your height, attire, and of course your maturity and competence led the Grey people to treat you "as if [you] were for real," which you were. You didn't look like a kid. I envision you being dressed up like you were when you visited DC.

Even though I try to keep bills low when someone else is paying the tab, I couldn't guess the punchline of your first story!

I can't imagine the Power Pack custom comic doing well in Europe because I assume "message" comics have to be culturally in tune with the audience to be effective. Was Power Pack licensed in Europe?

If I were the manager at Caliban's*, I'd have quite a few words with that belligerent waitress. Maybe some final words. Being hostile to customers is not good for business. Bizarre. But I'm glad you were there to take control.

On a marginally related note, I just went back and re-read my "Marvel: Five Fabulous Decades of the World's Greatest Comics" book and, considering all of the additional history you tell of on this blog from your tenure there, I wonder what your perspective is on the book. The book (which I think was published in 94 or 95?) takes an expectedly favorable view of people like Galton and DeFalco, as well as a pretty good view of you (it even seems that you were interviewed directly for the book). Do you remember much about the book or have any thoughts on it?

About Me

I did my first professional comics work at the age of thirteen, selling a Legion of Super-Heroes story to DC Comics and going on to write Superboy, The Legion of Super-Heroes, Superman and other titles.
In 1978, I accepted the position of Editor in Chief of Marvel Comics under the condition that I would be allowed to improve things for Marvel’s creators. I introduced royalties and a spectrum of other incentives, rights and benefits, attracting a Who’s Who of talent.
Later, I founded VALIANT, DEFIANT and Broadway Comics and was the principal creator of their characters and universes.
Today, I’m the Editor in Chief of Illustrated Media, a custom comics company.